10/7 ELECTION MODEL (TIA): OBAMA POLLING 364 EV (356 EXPECTED)- MAXIMUM PLAUSIBLE 375 EV w INDIANA?

tiptoe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Oct-09-08 12:22 AM
Original message

10/7 ELECTION MODEL (TIA): OBAMA POLLING 364 EV (356 EXPECTED)- MAXIMUM PLAUSIBLE 375 EV w INDIANA?

Edited on Thu Oct-09-08 12:42 AM by tiptoe

2008 ELECTION MODEL
A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation

TruthIsAll

Updated: October 7

Press REFRESH after linking to a graph to view the latest update

Chart State Poll Aggregate + Projection Trend

Chart National 5-Poll Moving Average Projection

Chart State vs. National: Vote Share Projection Trends

Chart Battleground-State Polls

Chart Battleground-State Win Probability

Chart Obama Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency

Chart Electoral Vote + Win Probability Trend

Chart Electoral Vote + Projected Vote Share Trend

Chart Undecided Voter Allocation + Win Probability

Chart Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Trials

2008 Election Model Fraud Analyzer

Uncounted & Switched Votes

Chart Effect on Obama Projected Vote Share

Chart Effect on Obama Projected Electoral Vote

“I’m glad that TIA raises the questions. A Top 10 list.” — Sancho

This
State
National
State
National
Monte  Carlo
Simulation

Update
Poll
5-Poll
2-party
2-party
Expected

10/07/2008
Aggregate
Average
Projection
Projection
Electoral Vote

Obama
McCain
 49.48 (52.42) 
 44.92 (47.58) 
 49.80 (53.55) 
 43.20 (46.45) 
52.84
47.16
54.00
46.00
 356 
 182

15-Poll

End

Sample

Poll

NATIONAL MODEL

Pre Undecided Voter Allocation
5-Poll Mov Avg

2-Party Projection (60% UVA)
5-Poll Mov Avg

Trend

Research2k
Gallup
Hotline/FD
Rasmussen
Zogby

Battleground
NBC/WSJ
CBS/NYT
CNN
Marist

AP/GfK
CBS/NYT
Ipsos
Time
Pew Research

Registered V
vs Likely V
Poll Averages

Date

10/06
10/06
10/06
10/06
10/06

10/05
10/05
10/05
10/05
09/30

09/30
09/30
09/30
09/29
09/29

Size

1100 LV
2744 RV
908 LV
3000 LV
1237 LV

800 LV
658 RV
616 LV
694 LV
943 LV

808 LV
769 LV
1007 RV
1133 LV
1181 LV

RV avg
LV avg
Total
2-party

MoE

2.95%
1.87%
3.25%
1.79%
2.79%

3.46%
3.82%
3.95%
3.72%
3.19%

3.45%
3.53%
3.09%
2.91%
2.85%

Obama

52
51
46
52
48

50
49
48
53
49

48
50
48
50
49

49.3
49.6
49.5
53.4

McCain

41
42
44
44
45

43
43
45
45
44

41
41
45
43
43

43.3
43.3
43.3
46.6

Other

7
7
10
4
7

7
8
7
2
7

11
9
7
7
8

7.3
7.2
7.2
0.0

Spread

11
9
2
8
3

7
6
3
8
5

7
9
3
7
6

6.0
6.3
6.3
6.8

Obama

49.8
49.4
49.0
49.4
49.6

49.8
49.4
49.6
49.6
49.0

49.0
49.4
48.8
49.6
49.2

McCain

43.2
43.6
43.8
44.0
44.2

44.0
43.6
43.2
43.2
42.8

42.6
43.6
43.8
43.4
44.0

Spread

6.6
5.8
5.2
5.4
5.4

5.8
5.8
6.4
6.4
6.2

6.4
5.8
5.0
6.2
5.2

Win Prob

99.9
99.7
99.4
99.9
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.7

99.4
97.8
91.5
88.1
90.0

Obama

54.0
53.6
53.3
53.4
53.3

53.5
53.6
53.9
53.9
53.9

54.0
53.6
53.2
53.8
53.3

McCain

46.0
46.4
46.7
46.6
46.7

46.5
46.4
46.1
46.1
46.1

46.0
46.4
46.8
46.2
46.7

Spread

8.0
7.2
6.6
6.7
6.6

7.0
7.2
7.8
7.8
7.8

8.1
7.2
6.5
7.6
6.6

Win Prob

100.0
100.0
99.9
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

99.9
99.6
97.4
96.2
96.9

The 2008 Election Model assumes that current polls reflect the will of the electorate and a fraud-free election is held today. Obama has a solid margin in virtually all the battleground states except Indiana. The Election Model’s undecided voter allocation solidifies his projected margin and win probability but does not increase his EV. Note that the theoretical expected EV is lower than the projected EV. In fact, there appears to be a 375 maximum on Obama’s total projected EV, assuming that he wins Indiana but no other red states in which he is trailing by large margins.

State Model
Aggregate Average
Projection (2-party)
Theoretical EV
Expected (mean) EV
Median EV
Polling EV
Projected EV
Election Trial Wins

National Model
Tracking Poll Average
Projection (2-party)

Obama
49.48
52.84
356.3
356.3
359.0
364.0
364.0
5000

49.80
54.00

McCain
44.92
47.16
181.7
181.7
179.0
174.0
174.0
0

43.20
46.00

weighted average based on 2004 recorded vote
Base case scenario: 60% Undecided (UVA) to Obama
EV = ∑ ( state win probability (i) *EV(i) ) i=1,51 states
Monte Carlo simulation (60% UVA, 5000 election trials)
Monte Carlo simulation
Latest State Polling split (unadjusted)
Latest State Poll + 60% Undecided (UVA) to Obama
Monte Carlo (random number vs. state win probability)

Rasmussen, Gallup, Research 2000, Hotline, Zogby
60% UVA to Obama

View the State vs. National vote share projection Trend.

Optimal Obama Resource Allocation to Key States

A new feature of the model is a ranking measure of optimal allocation of resources for key states. The rankings are a function of the electoral vote and the polling spread. A state with a high electoral vote and low polling spread will result in a high ranking based on the percentage of resources to be allocated.As of today, the five most important (highest ranked) states and corresponding allocation percentages are:

1- OH (20.0), 2- FL (19.3), 3,4 (tie)- IN (11.0), - MO (11.0), 5- NC (10.7).

In other words, Obama should allocate approximately 72% of available funds to these states. See the detailed state polling analysis below.

Projected Vote Shares, Electoral Votes and Win Probabilities

Electoral-vote.com (349–174–15) and RealClearPolitics (364–274) now closely match the Election Model. As indicated in a prior update, it is mathematically incorrect to just assign the state electoral vote to the poll leader (regardless of the spread) and to disregard state win probabilities which are based on the poll split; the two sites do not use probabilities in calculating the EV. Prior to last week, their EV estimates for Obama were low compared to the Election Model since a) the state polls were close and b) they do not allocate undecided voters.

The FiveThirtyEight site has Obama leading by 344–194 with a 89% win probability and 52.5% of the two-party vote (51.7-46.7).

The Election Model gave Obama 356 EV with 52.8% of the two-party vote, a 99% popular vote and 100% electoral vote win probability. Obama won ALL 5000 election trials. For the 40% UVA scenario, Obama won 4998 of 5000 election trials (a 99.6% win probability) with 339 EV and 51.7% of the two-party vote.

The discrepancy in win probabilities between the Election Model and FiveThirtyEight is due to a difference in methodology. FiveThirtyEight adjusts state poll weightings based on past pollster accuracy as well as other factors. It attempts to forecast the actual Election Day result. On the contrary, the Election Model does not weight any polls. It uses the recent poll average adjusted by an undecided voter allocation (40–80%) and assumes the election is held today.

The FiveThirtyEight Electoral Vote Distribution chart is not a continuous normal distribution bell-curve; there are discrete gaps in the bin totals. The Election Model Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency chart is a continuous, bell-shaped EV frequency histogram.

To base pollster performance on prior election accuracy is a two-edged sword. If a pollster predicts the winner of a rigged election, does that mean he was more accurate than one who correctly projected the True Vote? See Kerry (2004) and Gore (2000). This was the electoral-vote.com map on Nov 1, 2004.

Election Model Calculations

The projected vote share is equal to the latest poll plus the undecided voter allocation.

V(i)  =  Poll(i) + UVA(i)

The probability P(i) of winning state (i) is based on the projected state vote share V(i).

It is calculated using the Excel Normal distribution function, assuming a 4.0% MoE for a typical 600-sample poll:

P(i)  =  NORMDIST ( V(i),  0.5,  .04/1.96,  true )

The expected state electoral vote is the product of the win probability and electoral vote.

The total expected EV is given by the summation formula:

EV  =  Σ P(i) * EV(i),   where i = 1,51

The Electoral Vote Win probability is based on a 5000 election-trial Monte Carlo Simulation.

The EV win probability is the number of winning election trials/5000.

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


THE 2008 ELECTION MODEL

Last
S T A T E   M O D E L
 
N A T I O N A L   M O D E L
 
MONTE CARLO
SIMULATION

Update
L A T E S T  S T A T E–P O L L  A V E R A G E
 
L A T E S T   P O L L S   M O V–A V E R A G E
 
EXPECTED

10/07/2008
Aggregate
2-party
Projection
 
5-Poll
5-Poll 2-party
Projection
 
ELECTORAL VOTE

 
 
 
60% UVA
 
 
 
60% UVA

Current   EV
Obama
McCain
 
Map
49.48
44.92
 

52.42
47.58
 

52.84
47.16
 

  
 
 

49.80
43.20
 

53.55
46.45
 

54.00
46.00
 

  
 
 

356
182
 

 

 
75% UVA
 
 
 
75% UVA

11/01/04  EV
Kerry
Bush
 
Map
47.88
46.89
 

50.52
49.48
 

51.80
48.20
 

  
 
 

47.80
46.60
 

50.64
49.36
 

51.77
48.23
 

  
 
 

 337 
 201 
 

 


Sensitivity Analysis — Impact of Uncounted and Switched Votes on Obama

Uncounted
1%
 
2%
 
3%
 
Switched
2%
4%
6%
Vote%
51.6
50.5
49.4
EV
331
306
277
Vote%
51.3
50.3
49.2
EV
326
300
270
Vote%
51.1
50.0
49.0
EV
321
294
264

 

Sensitivity Analysis — Impact of Aggregate State Projected Vote Share

Undecided Voter Allocation
Current
Base Case

Obama
40%
52.4%
60%
75%
80%

 

Projected 2-Party Vote Share

Obama
McCain
51.7
48.3
52.4
47.6
52.84
47.16
53.7
46.3
54.0
46.0

 

MoE
Popular Vote – Obama Win Probability (Normdist)

1.0 %
2.0 %
3.0 %
100.0
95.4
87.0
100.0
99.1
94.3
100.0
99.7
96.8
100.0
100.0
99.2
100.0
100.0
99.5

 

Electoral Vote – Obama       (Monte Carlo Simulation:  based on state win-probabilities)

Mean
Median
339.2
340.0
350.4
353.0
356.3
359.0
368.8
370.0
372.6
375.0

Maximum
Minimum
393
269
413
282
424
291
439
302
441
306

 

Electoral Vote – Obama Win Probability

Trial Wins
Probability
4998
99.96
5000
100.0
5000
100.0
5000
100.0
5000
100.0

 

95% EV Confidence Interval
Upper
Lower
378
301
386
315
390
322
403
335
406
339

 

States Won
Obama
 
29
 
29
 
29
 
30
 
30

2008 POLLING ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS

National Model — see atop
State Model
(2-party vote shares)

 
 
L A T E S T   S T A T E   P O L L 
 
KEY STATES
(within MoE)
 
2004 EM  KERRY  VOTE–PROJECTION  vs
EXIT POLL  &  RECORDED VOTE–COUNT
 
2008  vs  2004
PROJECTED  VOTE

 

 
 
Pre-Undecided Voter Allocation
 
60% UVA
Projection
 
MC Exp EV
Win Prob
 

Resource  Allocation
 
Vote
Projected
WPE (IM)
 Exit Poll 
Vote
Counted
 
Kerry Projection
deviation
 
 
2008 Obama
diff
 
StatesEV
Flip To(*)
 

     

AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA

CO
CT
DC
DE
FL

GA
HI
ID
IL
IN

IA
KS
KY
LA
ME

MD
MA
MI
MN
MS

MO
MT
NE
NV
NH

NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND

OH
OK
OR
PA
RI

SC
SD
TN
TX
UT

VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
       
Last
Poll
 Date 
       
9/23
9/21
9/30
9/22
10/5

10/5
9/28
9/13
9/25
10/6

10/5
9/20
9/17
9/20
10/6

9/23
9/22
9/28
9/28
9/25

9/23
9/25
9/25
10/2
9/16

10/5
9/26
9/17
10/2
10/6

10/1
9/22
9/25
10/5
9/20

10/6
9/17
9/26
10/6
9/16

9/23
9/21
9/29
9/16
9/13

9/22
10/5
10/2
9/25
10/6
9/28
       
 VoteShare
 Popular 
 Electoral 

9
3
10
6
55

9
7
3
3
27

15
4
4
21
11

7
6
8
9
4

10
12
17
10
6

11
3
5
5
4

15
5
31
15
3

20
7
7
21
4

8
3
11
34
5

3
13
11
5
10
3
       
Obama
 49.48 %
 364 
       
37
38
38
37
55

48
54
90
57
51

44
68
33
56
46

53
40
42
40
50

57
56
51
51
44

50
44
37
51
53

52
52
58
50
42

48
34
52
52
55

41
39
39
43
28

55
51
53
44
50
37
 
McCain
 44.92 %
  174  
       
62
55
52
47
39

44
38
9
37
47

51
27
62
38
48

40
56
53
55
43

38
39
40
42
52

48
52
56
47
43

42
44
37
46
53

46
64
40
39
35

54
55
57
52
64

36
45
43
50
43
58
      
 
Spread
4.56 %
 190  
     
(25)
(17)
(14)
(10)
16

4
16
81
20
4

(7)
41
(29)
18
(2)

13
(16)
(11)
(15)
7

19
17
11
9
(8)

2
(8)
(19)
4
10

10
8
21
4
(11)

2
(30)
12
13
20

(13)
(16)
(18)
(9)
(36)

19
6
10
(6)
7
(21)
 
 
Obama
52.84 %
 364 
       
37.6
42.2
44.0
46.6
58.6

52.8
58.8
90.6
60.6
52.2

47.0
71.0
36.0
59.6
49.6

57.2
42.4
45.0
43.0
54.2

60.0
59.0
56.4
55.2
46.4

51.2
46.4
41.2
52.2
55.4

55.6
54.4
61.0
52.4
45.0

51.6
35.2
56.8
57.4
61.0

44.0
42.6
41.4
46.0
32.8

60.4
53.4
55.4
47.6
54.2
40.0 
 
Obama
100.0 %
 356.3 
       
0.0
0.0
0.2
4.8
100.0

91.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
85.9

7.1
100.0
0.0
100.0
42.2

100.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
98.0

100.0
100.0
99.9
99.5
3.9

72.2
3.9
0.0
85.9
99.6

99.7
98.4
100.0
88.0
0.7

78.3
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

0.2
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0

100.0
95.2
99.6
12.0
98.0
0.0 
 
Percent
 100 
          
       






6.4



19.3

4.3



11.0





1.1





0.9

11.0
0.4

3.6



0.7

10.7


20.0












5.6

2.1
2.9
    
 
Rank
 
          
       






6



2

8



3





12





13

3
15

9



14

5


1












7

11
10
   
 
Final  Kerry
51.75 %
 337 
       
42.0
39.8
48.8
50.5
55.8

50.8
56.5
86.3
57.8
52.3

46.5
52.5
38.3
57.0
41.3

54.5
39.3
42.8
49.0
58.3

56.3
70.8
54.3
55.0
47.3

49.3
41.3
37.3
50.5
51.5

56.0
50.5
60.0
49.3
42.5

52.3
36.3
54.5
53.8
62.0

44.3
46.5
49.3
40.0
29.3

58.3
48.5
55.0
49.5
54.8
33.5
       
JK Unadj
52.51 %
 337 

42.1
41.6
44.9
45.7
60.9

50.7
63.4
91.9
61.9
51.4

42.3
58.5
32.7
57.0
40.7

51.2
37.7
40.2
44.0
56.6

60.3
66.6
55.0
56.4
49.8

49.3
38.2
37.6
53.7
57.8

58.0
53.6
65.5
49.7
35.2

54.3
33.8
53.0
55.5
63.3

46.3
36.5
43.5
42.3
28.9

68.1
50.3
57.7
40.5
52.6
33.3
Kerry
48.76 %
 252 

37.2
35.9
44.8
45.0
54.9

47.5
54.9
90.1
53.9
47.6

41.8
54.6
30.6
55.4
39.7

49.7
37.0
40.1
42.6
54.1

56.5
62.6
51.7
51.6
40.2

46.6
39.0
33.0
48.4
50.7

53.5
49.5
59.0
44.0
35.9

49.2
34.8
51.9
51.4
60.0

41.3
38.8
43.0
38.6
26.3

59.5
45.9
53.4
43.6
50.2
29.4
    
 
Exit Poll
0.75 %
   0   

0.1
1.8
(3.9)
(4.8)
5.2

(0.0)
6.9
5.7
4.1
(0.8)

(4.2)
6.0
(5.5)
(0.0)
(0.6)

(3.3)
(1.6)
(2.6)
(5.0)
(1.6)

4.0
(4.1)
0.7
1.4
2.6

0.0
(3.1)
0.3
3.2
6.3

2.0
3.1
5.5
0.5
(7.3)

2.0
(2.4)
(1.5)
1.7
1.3

2.0
(10.0)
(5.8)
2.3
(0.4)

9.8
1.8
2.7
(9.0)
(2.1)
(0.2)
    
 
Vote Cnt
( 3.0 ) %
 (85) 
 
(4.8)
(3.9)
(3.9)
(5.5)
(0.9)

(3.3)
(1.6)
3.8
(3.9)
(4.7)

(4.7)
2.1
(7.7)
(1.6)
(1.6)

(4.8)
(2.3)
(2.7)
(6.4)
(4.1)

0.2
(8.2)
(2.5)
(3.4)
(7.1)

(2.7)
(2.3)
(4.2)
(2.1)
(0.8)

(2.5)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(5.2)
(6.6)

(3.1)
(1.5)
(2.6)
(2.3)
(2.0)

(2.9)
(7.7)
(6.3)
(1.4)
(3.0)

1.3
(2.6)
(1.6)
(5.9)
(4.5)
(4.1)
 
   Final  Kerry  
1.09 %
   19.3   

(4.4)
2.5
(4.8)
(3.9)
2.9

2.1
2.3
4.3
2.9
(0.0)

0.5
18.5
(2.3)
2.6
8.4

2.7
3.2
2.3
(6.0)
(4.1)

3.8
(11.8)
2.1
0.2
(0.9)

2.0
5.2
4.0
1.7
3.9

(0.4)
3.9
1.0
3.2
2.5

(0.6)
(1.1)
2.3
3.7
(1.0)

(0.3)
(3.9)
(7.9)
6.0
3.6

2.2
4.9
0.4
(1.9)
(0.5)
6.5
    
 
Obama
9
 112 

AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA

CO*
CT
DC
DE
FL*

GA
HI
ID
IL
IN

IA*
KS
KY
LA
ME

MD
MA
MI
MN
MS

MO*
MT
NE
NV*
NH

NJ
NM*
NY
NC*
ND

OH*
OK
OR
PA
RI

SC
SD
TN
TX
UT

VT
VA*
WA
WV
WI
WY

Polling data source:
Electoral-vote.com
RealClearPolitics.com

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 51.0–49.0% in each of five states with a total of 100 electoral votes. Most models would assign the 100 EV to McCain. But Obama could easily win one or more of the states, since his win probability is 31% :

The state projected vote share V(i) is the state poll share PS(i) plus the undecided voter allocation UVA(i):

V(i) = PS(i)+UVA(i), for i=1,51 states

For this example, a final Obama projected vote share V(i) = .49 for all states is assumed (with distinct state poll shares PS(i) and respective undecided voter allocations UVA(i) implied). Five states total 100 EV.

The probability P(i) of winning each state assuming a 4% polling MoE (95% confidence):

P(i) = NORMDIST ( V(i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true )

.31 = NORMDIST( .49, 0.5, .04/1.96, true) for each of the 5 states (the NORMDIST function is available in Excel)

The 2008 Election Model would allocate 31% of 100 EV to Obama and 69% of 100 EV to McCain. (more)

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

Most national and state polls are sponsored by the corporate MSM. Gallup, Rasmussen and other national polls recently increased the Republican Party ID percentage weighting. This had the immediate effect of boosting McCain’s poll numbers. But there are 11 million more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. USA Today/Gallup changed the poll method from RV to LV right after the Republican convention. 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.

In 2004, the 12:22am National Exit Poll (NEP) had a 38–35 Democrat/Republican 'Party ID' mix.

Kerry won the 12:22am Preliminary NEP by 51–48%. ( 13,047 random sample, 1% MoE )

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 ('13047' & '13660' here).

Bush won the 1:25pm 'forced' Final NEP by 51–48%.

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 Preliminary NEP had a 39–35 Democratic/Republican weighting mix. The Democrats won that 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 Great Election Fraud Lockdown: Uncounted, Stuffed and Switched Votes

Professional statistical organizations, media pundits and election forecasters who projected a Bush victory never discuss Election Fraud. On the contrary, a complicit media has been in a permanent election fraud lockdown, as it relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won BOTH elections. They want you to believe that Democrats always do better in the exit polls, because Republican voters are reluctant responders. But they never consider other, more plausible explanations — such as uncounted votes and stuffed ballots. Millions of mostly Democratic ballots are uncounted, spoiled and stuffed in every election and favored a Bush I and II in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004. That's why the Democratic True vote (and exit poll share) is always greater than the Recorded vote. Read more here.

• In most states, total votes cast exceeded votes recorded (uncounted ballots exceeded stuffed). In Florida, Ohio and 10 other states, total votes recorded exceeded votes cast (ballot stuffing exceeded uncounted ballots).

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

• In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 62–59m with 286 EV. But 3.4m of 125.7 million total votes cast were uncounted (2.7%) and 2.5m were for Kerry. If they were counted, the recorded Bush 3.0m margin is cut in half, 62.9 - 61.5m. And that's before vote rigging.

• The media commissioned exit polls which indicated that Kerry won by 52-47%.

• The exit pollsters never explained why mathematically impossible weights were used in the Final Exit Poll to 'force' a match to the recorded vote count.

• Historically, challengers have won 60–90% of the undecided vote (UVA) when the incumbent was unpopular. In 2004, final state and national Pre-Election Polls had the race nearly tied at 47%, and 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 ... (more)

Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote and Win Probability

Most election forecasting blogs and academics and the media employ the latest state polls as input to their models but 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. 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.

The Excel-based Election Model is straightforward. ... (more)

Other links:
2004 Election Model Summary, Polling Analysis, National & State Model tables
Confirmation of A Kerry Landslide
Election Fraud Analytics and Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ

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