2008 Election Model
A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation

TruthIsAll
Updated: Sept. 27

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionModel.htm


The TRUE Math

Assuming a fraud-free election was held today and current state polls, the 2008 Election Model indicates that given the following undecided voter allocations (UVA), these are Obama’s projected 2-party popular vote shares, electoral votes and electoral vote wins (in 5000 Monte Carlo simulation election trials):

UVA Vote Evote EV Wins (5000 trials)
50% 51.3% 325 4966
60% 52.0% 339 4996 (base case scenario)
75% 53.0% 359 5000
80% 53.3% 364 5000

Note: the polls were taken prior to the debate – so Obama’s numbers should improve as a result.

Obama has 53.9% of the two-party vote based on the most recent 5 national polls (the tracking polls include a post-debate one-day sample). Since the national polls lead the states, we can expect a rise in Obama’s expected EV to 374 (approx.) if his aggregate state poll rises to 53.9%.

View the State vs. National vote share projection Trend.

But what if the election is not fraud-free? Assuming 3% of votes cast are uncounted (75% are traditionally Democratic) and 4% of Obama’s votes are switched electronically to McCain, Obama loses by 278-260 EV with 49.4% of the two-party vote (see the election fraud sensitivity table below).

To illustrate how fraud cost Kerry the election, this was electoral vote.com on Nov 1, 2004.

The expected electoral vote is calculated by the formula:
EV = ∑ P (i) * EV (i), where i= 1, 51.
P (i) is the probability of winning state (i) with EV (i) electoral votes.

The probability P(i) of winning state (i) is based on the projected vote share V(i).
The vote share is equal to the latest poll plus the undecided voter allocation.
V (i) = Poll (i) + UVA (i).

The state win probability is calculated using the Normal distribution function assuming a 4.0% poll margin of error.
In Excel, the formula is: P (i) = NORMDIST (V (i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true).

The electoral votes, current poll numbers, projected vote shares and win probabilities for all the states are given in the table below.

Electoral-vote.com and RealClearPolitics each have Obama leading by 286-252. They assign the state electoral vote to the poll leader, regardless of the spread. This is mathematically incorrect since win probabilities are dependent on the spread - which they do not use in calculating the. Furthermore, undecided voters are NOT allocated.

On the other hand, fivethirtyeight.com has Obama leading by 318-220. The win probability of 79% is based on an Election Day forecast and weights pollster performance. The Election Model assumes the election is held today. The only adjust ment to the state polls is an undecided voter allocation (5 scenarios from 40-80%).

The theoretical expected EV is calculated as the sum of the products of the state electoral vote times the state win probability. This result closely matches the 5000 election trial Monte Carlo simulation average mean, median and mode.

Weighting polls based on historical pollster performance relies on a false premise. The Recorded vote was from the True vote in 2004 (the exit poll discrepancy was 7%).

Rasmussen (a Republican pollster) correctly projected the 2004 recorded vote. But it was a stolen election and he did not factor in a fraud component. In fact, if any pollsters account for fraud, they are not saying so. Zogby called it for Kerry by 51-48% which was close to the True Vote.

Does FiveThirtyEight.com weight Rasmussen polls higher than Zogby? Which one is the superior pollster?


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ov-pT1x-W8Y/SNU03EJMSzI/AAAAAAAACYE/IQVTZ_z7L9I/S1600-R/0920_evdist.png

Compare it to the Election Model Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency chart.
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionModel_30550_image001.png


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 risk-based models when an analytical solution is impractical or impossible. The EM is updated weekly based on the latest state and national polls. The model projects the popular and electoral vote, assuming both clean and fraudulent election scenarios. The EM allocates the electoral vote based on the state win probability in calculating a more realistic total Expected EV.

Corporate MSM pollsters and media pundits use state and national polling data. Electoral vote projections are misleading since they are calculated based on the latest state polls regardless of the spread; the state poll leader gets all of its electoral votes. This is statistically incorrect; they do not consider state win probabilities. And there is no adjustment for the allocation of undecided voters.

For example, assume that McCain leads by 50.5-49.5% 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 EV to Obama and 69 to McCain.

Bloggers also track state and national polls and do not adjust for undecided voters. A few use Monte Carlo simulation but the EV win probabilities and frequency distributions are NOT consistent with the polling data. Either the state win probabilities and/or the simulation algorithm is incorrect.

Academic regression models predict the popular vote but are run months prior to the election. They are typically based on economic and political factors rather than state or national polling data. They do not project the electoral vote. In 2004, virtually all of them forecast Bush to win by 5-10%. But since the election was stolen, the models had to be wrong – they didn’t factor election fraud as an independent variable in the regression. In fact, they never even mentioned the F-word in describing their methodologies.

Fixing the polls: Party ID, Voted in 2000, RV vs. LV

There has been much discussion regarding the recent McCain “surge” in the national polls. Most national and state polls are sponsored by the corporate MSM. Gallup, Rasmussen and other national polls recently increased the Republican Party ID percentage weighting. This had the immediate effect of boosting McCain’s poll numbers. But there are 11 million more registered Democrats than Republicans. USA Today/Gallup changed the poll method from RV to LV right after the Republican convention. Party-ID weights were manipulated to favor McCain as well.

There is a consistent discrepancy between Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) Polls. The Democrats always do better in RV polls. No wonder: Since 1988, Democratic presidential candidates have won new voters by an average 14% margin.

The manipulation of polling weights is nothing new. Recall that the 2004 and 2006 Final National Exit Polls weightings were adjusted to match the recorded vote miscount. But all category cross-tabs had to be changed, not just Party ID. Of course, the Final Exit Poll (state and national) is always matched to the recorded vote even though it may be fraudulent – as it was in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This cannot be emphasized enough. Say it loud again and again.

In 2004, the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP) had a 38/35 Democrat/Republican Party ID mix. Kerry won the NEP by 51-48%.The weighting mix was changed to 37/37 in the Final NEP to force a match to the recorded vote miscount. Likewise, the Gore/Bush “Voted 2000” weights were changed from 39/41 to 37/43 in the Final NEP. Bush was the official winner by 50.7- 48.3% with 286 EV.

The final 2004 Election Model projection indicated that Kerry would win 337-201 EV with 51.8% of the 2-party vote. In their Jan. 2005 report, exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky provided the average exit poll discrepancy for each state based on 1250 total precincts. Kerry won the unadjusted aggregate state exit poll vote share by 52.0-47.0% (2-party 52.5%) with 337 electoral votes - exactly matching the Election Model!

In the 2006 midterms, the 7pm NEP had a 39/35 Democratic/Republican weighting mix. The Democrats won the NEP by 55-43%. But the weights were changed to 38/36 in the Final NEP in order to match the 52-46% recorded vote; the Dem 12% margin was cut in half. Once again, the “Voted 2004” weights were transformed: from Bush/Kerry 47/45 at 7pm to 49/43 in the Final. The landslide was denied; 10-20 Dem seats were stolen.

The “dead heat” claimed by pollsters, bloggers and the media is a canard- unless they are factoring fraud into their models and not telling us. The media desperately wants a horserace. They fail to adjust the polls for undecided and newly registered voters. They avoid McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms while he supports the most unpopular president in history.


The Election Calculator Model

The 2004 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.

Voted Est. 2004 Calculated True Vote
In 2000 Turnout Votes Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV - 25.6 20.4% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 95% 49.7 39.5% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 95% 46.6 37.1% 10% 90% 0%
Other 95% 3.8 3.0% 64% 17% 19%

Total 100.1 125.7 100.0% 53.2% 45.4% 1.4%
Votes Cast 125.7 66.9 57.1 1.7

Recorded Vote share 48.3% 50.7% 1.0%
Recorded Vote 122.3 59.0 62.0 1.2

Unadjusted Exit Poll 52.0% 47.0% 1.0%
Deviation from True Vote -1.2% +1.6% -0.4%

The 2008 Election Calculator projects Obama will win the True Vote by 71-59m.
Estimated vote shares are similar to the 2004 National Exit Poll shares.

Estimated vote share (see National Exit Poll)
2004 Turnout Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV - 17.2 13.1% 59% 40% 1%
Kerry 95% 60.5 46.2% 89% 10% 1%
Bush 95% 51.6 39.4% 11% 88% 1%
Other 95% 1.6 1.2% 70% 11% 19%

Total 113.7 130.9 100% 54.1% 44.7% 1.2%
130.9 70.8 58.5 1.6


The Great Election Fraud Lockdown: Uncounted, Stuffed and Switched Votes

The Professional statistical organizations, media pundits and election forecasters who projected a Bush victory avoid 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 and stuffed ballots. Read more here.

Apparently, the MSM and election fraud naysayers are unaware that millions of ballots are either uncounted. Spoiled and stuffed. And that these anomalies have always favored a Bush: in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004. That is why the Democratic True vote (and exit poll share) is always greater than the Recorded vote.

The MSM does not want you to know the facts and assumes that you won’t analyze pre-election and post-election exit poll anomalies or review the discrepancies between the census and recorded vote totals. And if you do, expect to be labeled as a spreadsheet wielding conspiracy freak.

These are the facts:

a) 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).

b) The majority (70-80%) of uncounted ballots are in Democratic minority precincts. According to the 2000 Vote Census, 5.4m of 110.8m votes cast (4.9%) were uncounted (approximately 4.0m were Gore votes).

c) In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 62-59m. But 3.4m of 125.7m 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.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes conventional wisdom. Although the media commissioned exit polls which indicated that Kerry won by 5%, they never explained why mathematically impossible weights were used in the Final National Exit Poll to force a match the recorded vote count.

In the Three-Card Monte con, the mark is tricked into betting that he can find the money card among three face-down cards. A rigged election is the vote scam equivalent of Three-Card Monte. What you see in the exit polls is not what you get in the recorded count; the recorded vote is never equal to the True vote. In this con game, the voter is the mark. Any model which correctly calculates the True vote is doomed to fail in a rigged election.

Allocating Undecided Voters: Sensitivity Analysis

In the 2008 Election Model, Obama is considered to be the challenger since McCain is running for Bush’s third term. Typically, challengers win 60-90% of the undecided vote (UVA) if the incumbent is unpopular.

The State model includes a sensitivity (risk) analysis of five undecided voter (UVA) scenarios for Obama. The assumptions range from 40-80%, with 60% the base case. This enables one to view the effects of various projection assumptions on the expected electoral vote and win probability. Electoral vote forecasting models which do not provide a risk factor sensitivity analysis are incomplete.

The National Model calculates a 5-poll moving average projection assuming the 60% UVA scenario.

In 2004, final state and national polls had the race nearly tied at 47%. Bush had a 48% approval rating. That’s one reason why the Gallup poll projected that Kerry would win 88% of the late undecided vote.

The 2004 Election Model allocated 75% of the undecided vote to Kerry as the base case scenario. It projected that Kerry would have an expected 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote and a 99% electoral vote win probability.

Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote: A Simple Summation

It’s hard to understand why election forecasting blogs and academics and the media, who employ the latest state polls as input to their models, don’t use basic probability, statistics and simulation concepts in forecasting the electoral vote and corresponding win probability.

A meta-analysis or simulation is not required to calculate the expected electoral vote. Of course, the individual state vote projections depend on the particular forecasting method used.

This is the procedure in the 2008 Election Model for calculating the expected electoral vote:

1. The projected state vote share V (i) is the poll share plus the undecided voter allocation:
V (i) = PS (i) + UVA (i), for i=1, 51 states

2. The probability P (i) of winning each state is calculated using the normal distribution function assuming a 4% polling margin of error (95% confidence interval):
P (i) = NORMDIST (V (i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true)

3. The expected state electoral vote EVS (i) is the state win probability times the electoral vote:
EVS (i) = P (i)* EV (i)

4. The total expected electoral vote EV is the sum of the all the expected state electoral votes:
EV = ∑ EVS (i), for i = 1, 51 states.


Calculating the Probability of Winning the Electoral Vote: Monte Carlo Simulation

The Excel-based Election Model is straightforward. After updating the database for the latest state polling data, the vote shares are projected. The normal distribution function calculates the corresponding state win probability. The expected state EV is the product of the win probability and electoral vote. The sum of the 51 state expected EVs is the total expected EV.

The final step is to calculate the EV Win Probability. The Election Model uses a 5000-trial Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. MC is widely used for analyzing complex systems when an analytical solution is prohibitive due to the virtually infinite number of possible combinations of risk-based variables (i.e. state win probabilities). A random number generator (RND) is used in the simulated election trials. The winner of the election trial is the candidate who has at least 270 EV. The electoral vote win probability is simply the number of winning election trials divided by 5000.

The mean and median EV of the election trials always match to within 0.5% of the theoretical EV summation formula. This is proof that 5000 election trials are sufficient to derive a theoretically accurate win probability. The convergence of the simulated mean to the theoretical mean illustrates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN).

With all due respect to Professor Sam Wang, his Meta-Analysis program is an unnecessarily complex combinatorial algorithm when compared to Excel and Monte Carlo simulation for calculating the expected Electoral Vote and Win Probability.



Other links:
Confirmation of A Kerry Landslide
Election Fraud Analytics and Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ
2004 Registered Voter (RV) vs. Likely Voter (LV) Polls

Excel models available for download:
The Election Calculator: 1988-2004
2004 Interactive Simulation Model
A Polling Simulation Model
2000-2004 County Vote Database

Another one close enough to steal.

2008 Election Model
A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation

TruthIsAll

Updated: Aug 22

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionModel.htm

The pundits are saying that the race is tightening. According to Electoral-vote.com, the decline in Obama’s state polls has resulted in a 269-256 EV spread. RealClearPolitics.com shows the national polls tightening. By just presenting polling data without making adjustments for the large number of undecided and newly registered voters, these and other election forecasting sites confirm the media spin that the race is close.

The Election Model calculates that Obama has a bigger lead than these sites indicate. The Monte Carlo electoral vote simulation has him leading by 335-203. He leads in the aggregate State projection model by 52.3-47.7% and in the National model by 52.2-47.8%. The calculations assume the election is held today.

Here’s why Obama is doing better:

a) Of the latest 15 national polls, 10 are Registered Voter (RV) and 5 are LV. The RVs include newly registered young Democrats who are not included in the LV polls. Perhaps that’s why the average of the 10 RV polls has Obama leading by almost 5 points while the 5 LV polls are nearly tied. In 2004, Kerry consistently did better in RVs than in LVs.

b) The Election Model’s base case scenario assumption is that Obama will capture 60% of the undecided vote. He’s considered to be the challenger since McCain is running for Bush’s third term. Typically, challengers win 75-90% of the undecided vote. In 2004, the final state and national polls showed the race to be tied at 47, but Kerry won the undecided vote by at least 3-1.

c) The aforementioned sites allocate the full state electoral vote to the leader in the latest poll, regardless of how close the race is. For example, if the leader has 51%, he gets all the electoral votes. This oversimplification obscures the electoral vote projection. The Monte Carlo simulation eliminates this possibility by using state win probabilities to determine the total EXPECTED electoral vote.

But there’s another, bigger problem for Obama: Election Fraud. The media pundits want to keep it close by avoiding McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms. Never mind that he supports the most unpopular president in history. In a true democracy, this would be a slam dunk for Obama.

NOT ONE ELECTION WEBSITE, POLLSTER OR MEDIA PUNDIT EVER MENTIONS THE FRAUD FACTOR.

The Election Model accounts for the distinct probability that the election will be fraudulent and adjusts the vote shares accordingly. This analysis will be provided right up to the election. To show the effects of fraud, the summary table displays Obama’s electoral and popular vote assuming 3% of total votes cast are uncounted (Obama has 75%) and 4% of Obama’s votes are switched to McCain. After adjusting for these factors, Obama has 250 electoral votes and a 49.5% vote share. Of course, for higher switched vote and uncounted vote rates, he would lose by larger margins. Two graphs display the effects of a combination range of uncounted and switch vote scenarios on the EV and popular vote (see the links below).

The Democratic True vote is always greater than the Recorded vote. According to the Census Bureau, 5.4m (4.9%) of total votes cast in 2000 were uncounted. Approximately 4.0m were Gore votes. In 2004, 3.4m votes (2.7%) were uncounted of which 2.5m were for Kerry. The Election Calculator model (see below) indicates that 5.3m Kerry votes (7.9%) were switched to Bush.

OBAMA NEEDS A MASSIVE VOTER REGISTRATION AND GOTV EFFORT TO OVERCOME THE FRAUD.

In the Three-Card Monte con, the mark is tricked into betting that he can find the money card among three face-down cards. A rigged election is the Vote Scam equivalent of Three-card Monte. What you see in the exit polls is not what you get in the recorded count; the recorded vote is never equal to the True vote. In this con game, the voter is the mark. Any model which correctly calculates the True vote is doomed to fail in a rigged election.

New features have been added to the State model. Obama’s projected 2-party vote share is compared to the final Kerry projection, unadjusted exit poll and recorded vote shares. His 52.28% projected share is 0.48% higher and within 0.19% of Kerry’s unadjusted exit poll share. The Edison-Mitofsky WPE Input Management Screen (IMS) measure had Kerry at 51.92% (equivalent to a 2-party share of 52.48%).

Zogby and Harris were correct when they projected a Kerry win. But Bush won a rigged recorded vote while Kerry won the True vote. As in Three-Card Monte, what you see is not what you get. Election forecasters and media pundits who projected a Bush victory avoid mentioning the overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen. On the contrary, a complicit media has been in a permanent election fraud lockdown while it relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won BOTH elections.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes conventional wisdom. Although the media commissioned exit polls which indicated that Kerry won by 5%, they never explained why mathematically impossible weights were used in the Final Exit Poll to force a match the recorded vote count. Bush won the corrupt Recorded vote but lost the True vote. The final 2004 Election Model projection gave Kerry 337 EV and 51.8% of the two party vote. Bush won the recorded vote by 62-59m with 286 EV.

Obama is getting an expected convention bounce in the national polls.

What is his projected Electoral Vote, assuming the election is held today?

Is it 282, based on the latest unadjusted state polls?
Is it 301, based on state win probabilities assuming a 50/50 split of undecided voters?
Is it 331, based on state win probabilities assuming 60% of undecided voters (UVA) break for Obama?
Is it 341, based on projected state votes assuming 60% UVA for Obama?

The Monte Carlo EV simulation has him winning by 331-207.

The expected electoral vote can be calculated directly by a formula. But only a simulation can calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote.
Obama’s expected EV in a given state is the EV times his win probability.

Therefore, his Total Expected EV is given by the summation formula:

EV = sum < (P(i) * EV(i) >, for I =1 ,51 states.
P(i) is the probability of winning state(i) with EV(i) electoral votes.

For example, Obama is projected to win Florida’s 27 EV with 50.4% of the 2-party vote (57.8% win probability). His expected EV is 15.6 (0.578 * 27EV).
The state poll/projection table (below) includes the expected EV.

Obama leads the aggregate State projection model by 51.9-48.1% and the National model by 52.8-47.2%. He has a bigger lead than the near “dead heat” claimed by pollsters, bloggers and the media. That’s because they want a close race and don’t adjust polls for undecided and newly registered voters.

Of the latest 15 national polls, 11 are Registered Voter (RV) and 4 are LV. The RVs include newly registered young Democrats who are not included in the LV polls. Perhaps that’s why Obama leads by 4.6% in the RV polls but only 1.75% in the LVs. In 2004, Kerry did better in RVs than in LVs.

The Election Model’s base case scenario assumption is that Obama will capture 60% of the undecided vote. He’s considered to be the challenger since McCain is running for Bush’s third term. Typically, challengers win 75-90% of the undecided vote. In 2004, final state and national polls had the race nearly tied at 47 but Kerry had at least 70% of the undecided vote (Gallup allocated 88% to him).

But there’s another factor to consider - Election Fraud. The media avoids McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms while he supports the most unpopular president in history. In a true democracy, this election would be a slam dunk.

NOT ONE ELECTION WEBSITE, POLLSTER OR MEDIA PUNDIT EVER MENTIONS THE FRAUD FACTOR.

The Election Model accounts for the distinct probability that the election will be fraudulent and adjusts the vote shares accordingly. This analysis will be provided right up to the election. To show the effects of fraud, the summary table displays Obama’s electoral and popular vote assuming 3% of total votes cast are uncounted (Obama has 75%) and 4% of Obama’s votes are switched to McCain. After adjusting for these factors, Obama has 251 electoral votes and a 49.1% vote share. Of course, for higher switched vote and uncounted vote rates, he would lose by larger margins. Two graphs display the effects of a combination range of uncounted and switch vote scenarios on the EV and popular vote (see the links below).

The Democratic True vote is always greater than the Recorded vote. According to the Census Bureau, 5.4m (4.9%) of total votes cast in 2000 were uncounted. Approximately 4.0m were Gore votes. In 2004, 3.4m votes (2.7%) were uncounted of which 2.5m were for Kerry. The Election Calculator model (see below) indicates that 5.3m Kerry votes (7.9%) were switched to Bush.

OBAMA NEEDS A MASSIVE VOTER REGISTRATION AND GOTV EFFORT TO OVERCOME THE FRAUD.
In the Three-Card Monte con, the mark is tricked into betting that he can find the money card among three face-down cards. A rigged election is the Vote Scam equivalent of Three-card Monte. What you see in the exit polls is not what you get in the recorded count; the recorded vote is never equal to the True vote. In this con game, the voter is the mark. Any model which correctly calculates the True vote is doomed to fail in a rigged election.
Zogby and Harris were correct when they projected a Kerry win. But Bush won a rigged recorded vote while Kerry won the True vote. As in Three-Card Monte, what you see is not what you get. Election forecasters and media pundits who projected a Bush victory avoid mentioning the overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen. On the contrary, a complicit media has been in a permanent election fraud lockdown while it relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won BOTH elections.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes conventional wisdom. Although the media commissioned exit polls which indicated that Kerry won by 5%, they never explained why mathematically impossible weights were used in the Final Exit Poll to force a match the recorded vote count. Bush won the corrupt Recorded vote but lost the True vote. The final 2004 Election Model projection gave Kerry 337 EV and 51.8% of the two party vote. Bush won the recorded vote by 62-59m with 286 EV.

Will it be close enough to steal?

Has Palin made it better or worse for us?

Assume that the Obama's true vote is as projected in the model. Then if 3% of votes cast are uncounted and 4% are switched, McCain will win.

So the questions are these:

1 Will Obama retain or expand his lead in the projected electoral vote?
2 Is the GOP infrastructure in place to steal it as they did in 2004?
3 Will the GOP vote caging operation disenfranchise millions?
4 Will Obama expose the multi-level fraud?

The answers:
1 Yes, but only if the media exposes Palin.
2 Yes
3 Yes, unless the Dem state election offcials (SOS) prevent it (see Ohio)
4 Probably not

Bottom line:
The election doesn't have to be close for McCain to win.
Kerry won by 8-10 million votes with 53-46%.
Bush won the recorded vote by 3m - a 13m vote switch.

McCain will win unless the media exposes Palin, Dem state election officials do their job and Obama makes fraud an issue.

The Obama surge in the national polls continues. He leads the National 5-poll moving average projection model by 54.5-45.5%. He leads the State Monte Carlo simulation model by 52.1-47.9% with 334 expected electoral votes. View all the latest polls and projections in the tables below.

Since state polls lag the nationals by 2-3 weeks, the State vs. National vote share projection Trend should tighten. If Obama’s projected aggregate state vote share climbs to 54.5%, his projected electoral vote total will jump accordingly to around 400, just in time for the next October Surprise.

The “dead heat” claimed by pollsters, bloggers and the media is a canard- unless they are factoring fraud into their models and not telling us. The media desperately wants a horserace and so they fail to adjust the polls for undecided and newly registered voters. They avoid McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms while he supports the most unpopular president in history.

And now they say that the race will tighten because Palin will rally the base, has a strong personality and the executive experience that Obama lacks. And on top of all that, she understands Putin because Alaska is near Russia. That’s like saying you’re qualified to be a heart surgeon because there’s a hospital across the street from your house.

In a true democracy, this election would be a slam dunk.

The Great Election Fraud Lockdown: Uncounted, Stuffed and Switched Votes

The dirty little secret of election fraud has always been off the table in Congress. Click on the state abbreviation link in the projection table below to see why election fraud is a nationwide pastime.

Professional associations such as AAPOR, media pundits and election forecasters never discuss Election Fraud. On the other hand, 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.

The majority (70-80%) of uncounted ballots are in Democratic minority precincts. In 2000, according to the 2004 Census, a net 5.4 million of 110.8m total votes cast (4.9%) were uncounted, of which 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. Adding back the uncounted votes, the recorded Bush 3.0m margin is cut in half, 62.9 - 61.5m.

Apparently, election fraud naysayers are either unaware that millions of votes are uncounted (or stuffed) in every election - or they don’t want you to know that they know. That is one reason, but not the only one, why the Democratic True vote (and exit poll share) is always greater than the Recorded vote. Read more here.

The unadjusted, pristine aggregate state exit poll vote share (based on the WPE / IMS method) was provided by exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky in their Jan. 2005 report. It indicated that Kerry had a 52.0% share with 337 electoral votes. The final 2004 Election Model projection matched exit poll: Kerry had 51.8% of the two-party vote and exactly the same 337 EV! Read about the 2004 Election Model.

The 2004 Election Calculator model (see below) indicates that in addition to the uncounted votes, over 5m Kerry votes (7.9%) were switched to Bush. It wasn’t even close: Kerry won the election by close to 10m votes.

Because of the 2004 fiasco, a new feature in the 2008 Election Model provides a sensitivity analysis to gauge the potential effect of two major fraud components: uncounted and switched votes. The model summary table displays Obama’s projected electoral and popular vote, assuming a) 3% of total votes cast are uncounted (approximately 75% are Democratic) and b) 4% of his votes are switched to McCain. Two graphs display the effects of 36 uncounted and switch vote scenarios on the electoral and popular vote (see the links below).

Obama needs a massive voter registration effort to overcome the fraud.

The Impossible Final National Exit Poll: Vote Scam Equivalent of Three-Card Monte

Election forecasters and media pundits who projected a Bush victory avoid mentioning the overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen. On the contrary, a complicit media has been in a permanent election fraud lockdown while it relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won BOTH elections.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes conventional wisdom. Although the media commissioned exit polls which indicated that Kerry won by 5%, they never explained why mathematically impossible weights were used in the Final National Exit Poll to force a match the recorded vote count.

According to the Final, 43% of 2004 voters (52.6m) were former Bush 2000 voters, while just 37% were former 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 National Exit Poll overstated the Bush 2004 vote by approximately 7 million; it had to in order to match the corrupt miscounted vote.
In the Three-Card Monte con, the mark is tricked into betting that he can find the money card among three face-down cards. A rigged election is the Vote Scam equivalent of Three-card Monte. What you see in the exit polls is not what you get in the recorded count; the recorded vote is never equal to the True vote. In this con game, the voter is the mark. Any model which correctly calculates the True vote is doomed to fail in a rigged election.

Allocating Undecided Voters: Sensitivity Analysis

In the 2008 Election Model, Obama is considered to be the challenger since McCain is running for Bush’s third term. Typically, challengers win 60-90% of the undecided vote (UVA) if the incumbent is unpopular.

The State model includes a sensitivity (risk) analysis of five Obama undecided voter (UVA) scenario assumptions ranging from 40-80%, with 60% as the base case. This enables one to view the effects of various projection assumptions on the expected electoral vote and win probability. Electoral vote forecasting models which do not provide a risk factor sensitivity analysis are incomplete.

The National Model calculates a 5-poll moving average projection assuming the 60% UVA scenario.

In 2004, final state and national polls had the race nearly tied at 47%. Bush had a 48% approval rating. That’s one reason why the Gallup poll projected that Kerry would win 88% of the late undecided vote.

The 2004 Election Model allocated 75% of the undecided vote to Kerry as the base case of a five UVA sensitivity analysis. The base case scenario projected that Kerry would have an expected 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote. His electoral vote win probability was over 99%.

Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote: A Simple Summation

It’s hard to understand why election forecasting blogs and academics and the media, who employ the latest state polls as input to their models, don’t use basic probability, statistics and simulation concepts in forecasting the electoral vote and corresponding win probability.

A meta-analysis or simulation is not required to calculate the expected electoral vote. Of course, the individual state vote projections depend on the particular forecasting method used.

These are the steps used in the 2008 Election Model to calculate the expected electoral vote:

1. Project the 2-party vote share V(i) for each state by applying an undecided voter allocation (UVA):
V(i) = PS(i) + UVA(i), for i=1,51 states

2. Calculate the probability P(i) of winning each state. A 4% polling MoE (95% confidence) is assumed:
P(i) = NORMDIST (V(i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true)

3. Calculate the expected electoral vote ExpStateEV(i) for each state (win probability times EV):
ExpStateEV(i) = P(i)* EV(i)

4. Calculate the total expected electoral vote ExpEV as the sum of the expected state EVs:
ExpEV = ∑ ExpStateEV(i), for i = 1,51 states.


Calculating the Probability of Winning the Electoral Vote: Monte Carlo Simulation

The Excel-based Election Model is very straightforward as shown above. After updating the database for the latest state polling data, the vote shares are projected. The normal distribution function calculates the corresponding state win probability. The expected state EV is the product of the win probability and electoral vote. The sum of the 51 state expected EVs is the total expected EV.

The final step is to calculate the EV Win Probability. The Election Model uses a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. MC is widely used for analyzing complex systems when an analytical solution is prohibitive due to the virtually infinite number of possible combinations of risk-based variables (i.e. state win probabilities). A random number generator (RND) is used in the simulated election trials. The winner of the election trial is the candidate who has at least 270 EV. The electoral vote win probability is simply the number of winning election trials divided by 5000.

The Monte Carlo mean and median EV of the election trials match are always within one of the EV summation formula. This proves that 5000 election trials are sufficient to derive a theoretically accurate win probability. The simulation illustrates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN).

With all due respect to Professor Sam Wang, his Meta-Analysis program is an unnecessarily complex combinatorial algorithm when compared to Excel and Monte Carlo simulation for calculating the expected Electoral Vote and Win Probability.

Both Intrade and Rasmuusen Markets now have it a dead heat.

The fix is in.

There Was a Crooked Man

There was a crooked man,
and he walked a crooked mile.
He found a crooked sixpence
upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat,
which caught a crooked mouse,
and they all lived together in a crooked little house.

What do you think?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/11/135228/469

I think that Kos is an idiot, and the Daily Kos sucks.

Not influenced by the sponsor?
What does this guy feed on?
Rather, who is feeding him?

He is lying. Research 2000 is a Republican poll.

"The new Daily Kos tracking poll is conducted by the experienced and professional pollsters at Research 2000, and ****like all media polls, are not influenced by the sponsor****. It's not a liberal poll or a conservative poll, it's a poll – a snapshot over a three-day period. We are pleased to add this daily poll to the information that interested citizens and news consumers have to work with. Use the political environment you read about, here and elsewhere, to add context".

n/t

We will just get more of the same old same old. Tight race. Anybody's race. Etc. Etc. And the election will be stolen again.

The national polls indicate a close race. The National 5-poll projection model is a virtual tie. But Obama leads the State Monte Carlo simulation model by 51.3-48.7% with 293 expected electoral votes.

There has been much discussion regarding the recent McCain “surge” in the national polls. State polls are necessary for projecting the electoral vote. But state polls lag the nationals by 2-3 weeks. View the relationship in the State vs. National vote projection trend graph. There is a direct correlation between the national popular vote and the electoral vote. If Obama gets 51% of the 2-party national vote, his Monte Carlo electoral vote win probability is 90% (see the table below).

Most of the national and state polls are sponsored by the corporate MSM. But that’s nothing new: Democratic poll numbers always exceed the recorded vote but are less than the True Vote. USA/Today/Gallup and other national polls increased the Republican Party ID percentage weighting which boosted McCain’s poll numbers.

Recall that the 2004 and 2006 Final National Exit Polls weightings were adjusted to match the recorded vote miscount. But all category cross-tabs had to be changed, not just Party ID. Of course, the Final Exit Poll (state and national) is always matched to the recorded vote even though it may be fraudulent – as it was in 2000, 2004 and 2006. This cannot be emphasized enough. Say it loud again and again.

In 2004, the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP) had a 38/35 Democrat/Republican Party ID mix. Kerry won the 12:22am NEP by 51-48%.The mix was changed to 37-37 in the Final NEP to force a match to the recorded vote; Bush won by 51-48%. Likewise, the Gore/Bush “Voted 2000” weights were changed from 39/41 to 37-43 in the Final. The election was stolen. Bush was the official winner by 50.7- 48.3% with 286 EV. The Final Exit Polls were adjusted accordingly.

The final 2004 Election Model projection indicated that Kerry would win 337-201 EV with 51.8% of the 2-party vote. But he actually did better than that. In their Jan. 2005 report, exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky provided the average exit poll discrepancy for each state (a total of 1250 national precincts). Kerry won the unadjusted aggregate state exit poll vote share by 52.0-47.0% (a 2-party vote of 52.5%). The Kerry states had 337 electoral votes - exactly matching the Election Model projection!

In the 2006 midterms, the 7pm NEP had a 39/35 Dem/Rep weighting mix. The Democrats won the National Exit Poll by 55-43%. The weights were changed to 38/36 in the Final NEP to match the 52-46% recorded vote. Likewise, the “Voted 2004” weights were transformed from 47 Bush/45 Kerry to 49 Bush/43 Kerry in the Final. The landslide was denied. Some 10-20 Dem seats were lost to fraud.

There is also a distinction between Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) Polls. The Democrats always do better in RV polls. The reason: Newly registered voters have been mostly Democratic since 1988. Since then, Democratic presidential candidates have won new voters by an average 14% margin.

The “dead heat” claimed by pollsters, bloggers and the media is a canard- unless they are factoring fraud into their models and not telling us. The media desperately wants a horserace and so they fail to adjust the polls for undecided and newly registered voters. They avoid McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms while he supports the most unpopular president in history.

And now they say that the race has tightened because Palin has rallied the fundamentalist base and has the executive experience that Obama lacks. And she understands Putin because Alaska is near Russia. That’s like saying you’re qualified to be a heart surgeon because there’s a hospital across the street from your house.

In a true democracy, this election would be a slam dunk. Obama needs a massive voter registration effort to overcome the fraud. The dirty little secret of election fraud has always been off the table in Congress. Click on the state abbreviation link in the projection table below to see why election fraud is a national pastime, just like baseball.

Forewarned is forearmed. A new feature in the 2008 Election Model calculates the effect of 36 uncounted and switch vote scenarios on the electoral and popular vote (see the corresponding graph links). As things now stand, the model projects that Obama will lose the electoral and popular vote if just 2% of total votes cast are uncounted (approximately 75% are Democratic) and 2% of his votes are switched to McCain.

Assuming the election is held today, Obama’s win probability as calculated by fivethirtyeight.com (71.5%) is not consistent with their projected 303-235 EV.

The Election Model uses a 5000-election trial Monte Carlo simulation. The model projects that if a fraud-free election is held today, Obama would win 323-215 Electoral votes with 51.1% of the two-party vote. The EV win probability is a simple calculation: Obama won 4926 of 5000 simulated election trials; his win probability is therefore 98.5% (4926/5000). It’s a snapshot which changes slightly every day.

The model indicates that for the same 303-235 EV split, Obama’s EV win probability is 92% (assuming he wins just 50% of the undecided vote). Since the probability calculations in both models are based on the latest state polls, there is obviously a difference in methodology between the models.

The Election Model base case scenario assumes that Obama will win 60% of the undecided vote. And this is conservative as he is presumed to be the challenger since McSame is running for the third Bush term.

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

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ov-pT1x-W8Y/SNU03EJMSzI/AAAAAAAACYE/IQVTZ_z7L9I/S1600-R/0920_evdist.png

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionModel_30550_image001.png

Obama also leads the National projection model (based on the average of the latest 5 national polls) with 52.4% of the 2-party vote. Note that the national polls lead the state polls, so that we can expect a rise Obama’s expected EV and win probability. The national model also assumes that he will win 60% of the undecided vote. The probability that he will win the popular vote is over 98%.

As of Sept.20, electoral-vote.com has Obama leading by 273-265; realclearpolitics has him losing by 202-216 (120 tossup); fivethirtyeight.com has Obama by 303-235. But the 2008 Election Model (EM) had Obama leading: 323-215. Why the difference?

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

And why don’t they mention the fraud factor? If just 2% of votes cast are uncounted (2.74% were in 2004) and 4% of Obama’s votes are switched electronically to McCain, McCain will win by 293-245 EV with 51.2% of the two-party vote.

The EM uses Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. Monte Carlo is widely used to analyze diverse risk-based models when an analytical solution is impractical or impossible. The EM is updated weekly based on the latest state and national polls. The model projects the popular and electoral vote, assuming both clean and fraudulent election scenarios. The EM allocates the electoral vote based on the state win probability in calculating a more realistic total Expected EV.

Corporate MSM pollsters and media pundits use state and national polling data. Electoral vote projections are misleading since they are calculated based on the latest state polls regardless of the spread; the state poll leader gets all of its electoral votes. This is statistically incorrect; they do not consider state win probabilities. And there is no adjustment for the allocation of undecided voters.

For example, assume that McCain leads by 51-49% in each of five states with a total of 100 electoral votes. Most models would 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 EV to Obama and 69 to McCain.

Bloggers also track state and national polls and do not adjust for undecided voters. A few use Monte Carlo simulation but the EV win probabilities and frequency distributions are NOT consistent with the polling data. Either the state win probabilities and/or the simulation algorithm is incorrect.

Academic regression models predict the popular vote but are run months prior to the election. They are typically based on economic and political factors rather than state or national polling data. They do not project the electoral vote. In 2004, virtually all of them forecast Bush to win by 5-10%. But since the election was stolen, the models had to be wrong – they didn’t factor election fraud as an independent variable in the regression. In fact, they never even mentioned the F-word in describing their methodologies.

Fixing the polls: Party ID, Voted in 2000, RV vs. LV

There has been much discussion regarding the recent McCain “surge” in the national polls. Most national and state polls are sponsored by the corporate MSM. Gallup, Rasmussen and other national polls recently increased the Republican Party ID percentage weighting. This had the immediate effect of boosting McCain’s poll numbers. But there are 11 million more registered Democrats than Republicans. USA Today/Gallup changed the poll method from RV to LV right after the Republican convention. Party-ID weights were manipulated to favor McCain as well.

There is a consistent discrepancy between Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) Polls. The Democrats always do better in RV polls. No wonder: Since 1988, Democratic presidential candidates have won new voters by an average 14% margin.

The manipulation of polling weights is nothing new. Recall that the 2004 and 2006 Final National Exit Polls weightings were adjusted to match the recorded vote miscount. But all category cross-tabs had to be changed, not just Party ID. Of course, the Final Exit Poll (state and national) is always matched to the recorded vote even though it may be fraudulent – as it was in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This cannot be emphasized enough. Say it loud again and again.

In 2004, the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP) had a 38/35 Democrat/Republican Party ID mix. Kerry won the NEP by 51-48%.The weighting mix was changed to 37/37 in the Final NEP to force a match to the recorded vote miscount. Likewise, the Gore/Bush “Voted 2000” weights were changed from 39/41 to 37/43 in the Final NEP. Bush was the official winner by 50.7- 48.3% with 286 EV.

The final 2004 Election Model projection indicated that Kerry would win 337-201 EV with 51.8% of the 2-party vote. In their Jan. 2005 report, exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky provided the average exit poll discrepancy for each state based on 1250 total precincts. Kerry won the unadjusted aggregate state exit poll vote share by 52.0-47.0% (2-party 52.5%) with 337 electoral votes - exactly matching the Election Model!

In the 2006 midterms, the 7pm NEP had a 39/35 Democratic/Republican weighting mix. The Democrats won the NEP by 55-43%. But the weights were changed to 38/36 in the Final NEP in order to match the 52-46% recorded vote; the Dem 12% margin was cut in half. Once again, the “Voted 2004” weights were transformed: from Bush/Kerry 47/45 at 7pm to 49/43 in the Final. The landslide was denied; 10-20 Dem seats were stolen.

The “dead heat” claimed by pollsters, bloggers and the media is a canard- unless they are factoring fraud into their models and not telling us. The media desperately wants a horserace. They fail to adjust the polls for undecided and newly registered voters. They avoid McCain’s gaffes, flip-flops and plagiarisms while he supports the most unpopular president in history.