|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
tiptoe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-24-08 11:27 PM Original message |
7/24 Election Model: Obama 368EV, State-54.1%, Natl-53.8%; 253EV if 3% votes Uncounted & 6% Switched |
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 12:20 AM by tiptoe
2008 ELECTION MODEL A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Updated: July 24 Press REFRESH after linking to a graph to view the latest update. 2008 Election Model Fraud Analyzer
15-Poll End Sample Poll NATIONAL MODEL Pre Undecided-Voter Allocation 5-Poll Mov Avg 2-Party 2-Party Projection (60% UVA) 5-Poll Mov Avg 5P MA Trend Rasmussen Gallup NBC NYT/CBS ABC/WP Zogby Quinnipiac Newsweek h Pew CNN DemCorp Time Bloomberg USA Today Newsweek Date 23-Jul 22-Jul 21-Jul 14-Jul 13-Jul 13-Jul 13-Jul 10-Jul 29-Jun 29-Jun 25-Jun 25-Jun 23-Jun 19-Jun 19-Jun Size 3000LV 2645RV 1003RV 1462RV 1000RV 1039LV 1725LV 1037RV 1574RV 906RV 2000RV 805RV 1115RV 1310LV 896RV MoE 1.79% 1.91% 3.09% 2.56% 3.10% 3.04% 2.36% 3.04% 2.47% 3.26% 2.19% 3.45% 2.93% 2.71% 3.27% Obama 48 46 47 45 50 47 50 44 48 50 49 47 49 50 51 McCain 45 42 41 39 42 40 41 41 40 45 45 43 37 44 36 Spread 3 4 6 6 8 7 9 3 8 5 4 4 12 6 15 Obama 47.0 47.0 47.8 47.2 47.8 47.8 48.2 47.6 48.6 49.0 49.2 48.4 48.6 48.2 48.0 McCain 41.8 40.8 40.6 40.6 40.8 41.4 42.4 42.8 42.0 42.8 41.0 40.2 40.6 41.6 41.8 | Obama 53.03 53.53 54.07 53.76 53.95 53.59 53.20 52.65 53.64 53.38 54.55 54.63 54.48 53.67 53.45 Win Prob 99.15 99.42 99.76 99.55 99.71 99.35 99.07 96.45 99.37 98.86 99.89 99.83 99.84 99.20 98.06 Obama 53.80 54.32 54.76 54.52 54.64 54.28 53.84 53.36 54.24 53.92 55.08 55.24 55.08 54.32 54.12 McCain 46.20 45.68 45.24 45.48 45.36 45.72 46.16 46.64 45.76 46.08 44.92 44.76 44.92 45.68 45.88 Diff 7.6 8.6 9.5 9.0 9.3 8.6 7.7 6.7 8.5 7.8 10.2 10.5 10.2 8.6 8.2 Win Prob 99.83 99.90 99.95 99.92 99.94 99.85 99.76 98.88 99.82 99.59 99.97 99.96 99.96 99.77 99.32 MoE 2.49% 2.74% 2.83% 2.82% 2.80% 2.83% 2.66% 2.88% 2.86% 2.91% 2.91% 3.09% 2.97% 2.99% 3.27% Based on the latest state polls, projections and win probabilities, the 5000-election trial Monte Carlo simulation indicates that Obama will win 54.1% of the two-party vote with 368 electoral votes — if the election is fraud-free and held today. The projection base case scenario assumes that he will win 60% of the undecided vote allocation (UVA). The national model 5-poll projection average confirms the state model (within 0.3%) and indicates that he will win 53.8%. Since Obama won all 5000 Monte Carlo (MC) simulation election trials, his electoral vote win probability is 100%. The probability of winning the electoral vote is based on a 5000 trial Monte Carlo simulation; the probability of winning the popular vote is calculated using the Excel normal distribution function. The near 100% match of state and national model vote shares and win probabilities confirms the polls as well as the mathematical methodology — just as it did in the final 2004 Election Model projection. But there’s a catch: It’s called Election Fraud. In a true democracy, this would be a slam dunk for Obama. The Democratic True Vote is always greater than the Recorded Vote. In 2000 and 2004, the discrepancy was primarily due to two factors:
What would it take for Obama to lose? Assume the base case projection scenario but with 3% of total votes cast uncounted and 6% of Obama’s votes (1 out of 17) switched to McCain. Obama will then have just 252 EV. The effect of uncounted and switched vote rates on the EV and popular vote are displayed graphically by clicking on the links below. In the street card game scam called Three-Card Monte the victim, or mark, is tricked into betting a sum of money if he can find the money card among three face-down cards. Our elections are the equivalent of Three-Card Monte. What you see is not what you get. In this democracy game the voter is the mark. The Election Model is doomed to fail in a Three-Card Monte election. Zogby was correct in 2004 when he projected that Kerry would win. Unfortunately, Bush won a rigged Recorded vote. Kerry won the True vote, but like Three-Card Monte, what you see is not what you get. Election forecasters and complicit media pundits who projected a Bush win avoid discussing the overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen. On the contrary, a complicit media relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won TWO 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. McCain supports the most unpopular president in history with 25% approval. A massive new voter registration and GOTV effort is required to overcome the fraud. These graphs display the effects of uncounted and switched votes on Obama's projected EV and 2-party vote share. ?click">Effect of uncounted and switched votes on the projected vote share ?click">Effect of uncounted and switched votes on the electoral vote
National Model — see atop. State Model
Uncounted and Switched Vote Fraud Scenarios The Election Model has been updated to include two key fraud variable factors: uncounted votes (net of votes padded) and switched votes. Historical evidence shows that over 75% of uncounted ballots are found in heavily Democratic minority precincts. These critical factors are never included in election forecasting models which permeate the media and the internet. In fact, there is no mention of fraud from professional pollsters, political forecasters in academia, media pundits or liberal bloggers on their web sites. But it’s understandable. No one wants to bite the hand that feeds them. Why should any of these interested parties discuss fraud when Democratic politicians won’t? Unlike impeachment, the dirty little secret of election fraud has always been off the table in Congress. In 2004 approximately 3% of all votes cast were uncounted. Bush stole 8.0% of Kerry’s votes (analysis below) to obtain his 3.0 million vote “mandate”. Past is Prologue. It would be foolish to assume a fraud-free election. That’s why the Election Model now includes a fraud scenario analysis. Assuming that 3% of total votes cast are not counted, based on the latest polls McCain needs 6% of Obama’s votes switched to his column to win. This could be done by rigging strategically selected touch screens, optical scanners, punched cards, levers and central tabulators. Is it just a coincidence that Karl Rove is advising McCain? The Election Model calculates projected vote shares and the electoral vote over a range of 36 uncounted and switched vote scenarios. The scenarios range from the True Vote (zero votes uncounted, zero switched) to Massive Fraud (5%, 10%). For simplicity, the model assumes that the scenarios apply equally in each state - admittedly an unrealistic assumption. But it provides a good approximation of the impact on the projected electoral vote and popular vote share. These are a few reasons why Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is preferable to election forecasting methods used in the media and academia:
Popular and Electoral Vote Win Probabilities There are a number of election forecasting sites on the Internet which give McCain more than a 3% chance of winning the election. That would be true if Obama was leading by 3% in which case he could expect 300 EV. But it’s a mathematical impossibility based on the latest polls since he leads the two-party vote by 6-7%. A 6% margin (see table) will result in an electoral vote win 99.98% of the time. The sites provide potential cover for another stolen election, whether they realize it or not. Some election projection sites give probabilities based on the election voting markets which currently give McCain a 30-40% chance of winning. Unless the market participants suspect that the election will once again be stolen, the inflated McCain “market” prices only reflect the “horserace” propaganda promoted by the media to make it appear that it will be a close election. But the state and national polls say otherwise. Fifty state polls (zogby.com and electoral-vote.com) and 5 national polls (realclearpolitics.com) confirm that Obama is leading by 54-46%. And his lead has been increasing over the past six weeks. The Law of Large Numbers (LLN) is in effect. The more polls, the more samples, the greater the confidence that the sample mean vote is close to the True Vote. The LLN confirms that with 54% of the two-party vote, Obama has a 100% probability of winning the Electoral Vote. Sensitivity Analysis The 2008 Election Calculator This model uses prior election votes cast, mortality and estimated voter turnout to calculate the True Vote. It was originally developed to determine the 2004 True vote after the fact. It does not calculate the corresponding Electoral vote. But we can estimate the Electoral vote and win probability from the popular vote. National Exit Poll vote shares of returning voters were key inputs. As of today, the 2008 Election Calculator confirms the Election Model: Obama has 54.1% and will win the True Vote by 71 – 59m. Input consists of 2004 total votes cast (recorded plus uncounted), mortality and 2004 voter turnout in 2008. The vote shares are similar to the 2004 National Exit Poll shares of returning and new voters. 2008 True Vote Election Calculator Forecast In each election trial, the winner is determined by a random process based on state win probabilities which are in turn determined by the latest poll.
The Popular Vote win probability (for a state and the national aggregate) is calculated using the Excel normal distribution function.
2004 Election Model Review On Election Day 2004, Bush had a 48% approval rating. He won the official vote by 62 – 59m (122.3m recorded). But according to the 2004 Census, 125.7m votes were cast. Therefore, approximately 3.4m votes (2.74%) were uncounted. The majority (70–80%) of uncounted ballots are in Democratic minority precincts. Including uncounted votes, the adjusted count becomes 62.9–61.5m.
The model produced a startling confirmation of the state and national models.
The Election Model projections were based on state and national Pre-election polls.
Exit Pollsters Edison-Mitofsky released their 2004 Evaluation report in Jan. 2005.
The state exit poll WPD:
The 1:25pm FINAL National Exit Poll indicated that Kerry lost by 48 – 51%.
2004 Registered Voter (RV) vs. Likely Voter (LV) Polls
The Election Calculator Model used 12:22am NEP vote shares applied to returning and new voters. It determined that Kerry won a 67–57 million landslide, 53.2 - 45.4%. 2004 Calculated True Vote 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 HAVA Look: A Simple, Verifiable, Open Source, Paper Ballot Vote-Recording & Counting System Excel Models available for download: The Election Calculator: 1988-2004 2004 Interactive Simulation Model A Polling Simulation Model 2000-2004 County Vote Database |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AndyTiedye (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-25-08 01:24 AM Response to Original message |
1. The Bottom Line is That it is Just as Stealable as 2004 Was |
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tiptoe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-25-08 08:12 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. K&R it! The Fraud needs be overcome..."VR Speaks to Ohio Lawyers About Karl Rove and Election Fraud" |
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 08:55 AM by tiptoe
1) Massive voter registration -- as Obama has been persuing all along -- is needed. 2) Dems need to push hard the characterization of McCain in close association with "the most unpopular President in US history." As the OP points out: McCain supports the policies of Bush. Bush was at 48.5% Approval rating in 2004...and is now 24% in California!! Election 2008 will be "less stealable" the greater the "numbers" (as in 2006) and the more preposterous the likelihood of a "McCain==Bush" Presidency. Expanded exposure of the re-energized Arnebeck case in Ohio can only help: Rove Threatened GOP IT Guru If He Does Not 'Take the Fall' for Election Fraud in Ohio, Says Attorney ..The disclosure from Arnebeck comes on the heels of a dramatic announcement last week, made at a Columbus press conference, announcing Arnebeck's motion to lift a stay on the long-standing King Lincoln Bronzwell v. Blackwell federal lawsuit, challenging voting rights violations in the 2004 Presidential Election in Ohio. VR Speaks to Ohio Lawyers About Karl Rove and Election Fraud (vid - Building the foundation for Fraud) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tiptoe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-25-08 07:14 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Sancho knows it and advises Obama campaign on June 19: |
Edited on Fri Jul-25-08 08:01 PM by tiptoe
"...Obama better realize that a grass roots campaign, rallies, polls, and predictions are MEANINGLESS if there is no fair election. Only a few key states are needed to swing the electoral college while only a relatively few per cent of votes need to be altered in those key states. Kerry and Gore 'won'. Neither occupied the White House." "Florida elections were rigged for the last decade; I see no difference today... - Sancho, June 19, 2008 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tiptoe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Jul-27-08 06:10 PM Response to Original message |
4. 7/26 Election Model: Exact 53.9% match of State and National projections |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat May 04th 2024, 10:14 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC