10/02 Richard Charnin's House & Senate RV/LV Polling Forecast Model (w latest Newsweek Generic poll)

[tiptoe]

2010 Midterm House & Senate Forecast Model: RV/LV Polls, Undecided Voters & Election Fraud    bit.ly/auSg8p

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)         source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionForecastModels.htm     

October 2, 2010

The House and Senate forecast models provide comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls. The assumption is that the election is held today. Pre-election polls interview registered voters; likely voter polls are a sub-sample. They are not separate polls.

The Senate model employs simulation analysis of the latest RV and LV polls to forecast average GOP net gains, associated win probabilities and trends. The built-in sensitivity analysis displays the effects of various undecided voter allocation and vote-switching scenarios.

The House model provides a summary comparison of the latest RV and LV Generic polls, win probabilities and a moving average projection. As in the Senate model, the sensitivity analyses displays the effect of various undecided voter and vote-switching assumptions on forecast vote shares, House seats and win probabilities. The 2010 summary table illustrates the wide difference between Rasmussen and other pollsters. The 2006-2010 Generic Poll table provides a historical context.

Latest Polling Analysis

The latest Newsweek Generic RV poll has the Democrats leading 48-43%, their biggest lead since the Gallup 49-43% RV poll in July.

The GOP average LV poll margin is 5% higher than the average RV margin.

Senate Models

RV & LV (15 RV and 22 LV polls)
Most of the RV polls are from CNN/Time.
The Democrats have a 52.4-45.6 simulated seat margin (100% win probability).
The Democrats lead the 37-poll weighted average by 44.7-43.8%.
The Democrats lead the 15 RV poll unweighted average by 46.1-41.1 and the corresponding 15 RV polls by 44.1-43.9%.

LV (37 LV polls)
Most polls are from Rasmussen.
The Democrats have a 50.0-48.0 simulated seat margin (91.5% win probability).
The GOP leads the LV poll weighted average by 46.2-42.8 (4.7% difference in margin from the RV&LV average).
Each 1% incremental vote-switch to the GOP gives them 2 additional seats (Table 5).

House Models

RV (12 polls)
The GOP leads the average by 45.7-43.8%.
The GOP has a 223-212 seat margin (73% win probability).

LV (10 polls)
The GOP leads the average by 47.0-40.0% (5.2% difference in margin from the RV average).
The GOP wins control by a 235-200 seat margin (99% win probability).
Each 1% incremental vote-switch to the GOP gives them 4 additional seats (Table 7).

Democrats always do better in the full RV sample than in the LV sub-sample (see the LVCM model below). LV polls exclude millions of registered voters who actually vote — and most of them are Democrats. In addition, millions of votes are cast but never counted in every election — and most of them are Democratic as well. The good news is that proliferation of electronic voting has reduced the uncounted vote rate. The bad news is that votes can be switched, stuffed or dropped at the voting machine and/or the central tabulator where they are counted.

Since 2000, LV poll projections have closely matched recorded vote-count shares and final exit polls (which are "forced" to match the recorded vote). The RV poll projections closely matched the unadjusted-state and preliminary-national exit polls.

As Election Day approaches, the MSM gradually phases out RV polls for LVs which lowball the projected Democratic vote share. And so the general public is prepared for the fraudulent recorded vote-counts that the MSM always knows are coming.

  October 2 House and Senate Forecast Summary

 

 

Average Share (%)

GOP

 

Projected Share (%)

 

Projected Seats

WinProb

Polls
Senate
Unwtd Avg
15
15



Wtd Avg
37
37



House
12
10



22

Type


RV
LV

Diff


RV&LV
LV

Diff


RV
LV

Diff

Total

Dem


46.1
44.1

-2.0


44.7
42.8

-2.0


43.8
40.0

-3.8

42.1

GOP


41.1
43.9

2.8


43.8
46.6

2.8


45.7
47.0

1.3

46.3

Spread


-5.1
-0.3

4.8


-0.9
3.8

4.7


1.8
7.0

5.2

4.2

 

Dem


-
-




50.5
48.1

-2.4


49.1
46.5

-2.6

47.9

GOP


-
-




49.5
51.9

2.4


50.9
53.5

2.6

52.1

 

Dem


-
-




52.5
50.0

-2.5


211.7
200.4

-11.3

206.5

GOP


-
-




45.4
48.1

2.7


223.3
234.6

11.3

228.5

GOP


-
-




0.0%
8.5%

8.5%


73%
99%

26%

91%

 

The media/pollster drumbeat of a “horse race” is largely based on LV polls. The narrative conditions the public to expect a recorded vote which in fact understates the True Democratic share. The pollsters discount the RV sample for a fraud component, fully expecting that the LV projections will be a close match to the recorded vote — but they never mention the F-word. They know that votes are miscounted in every election. And so their final LV-based polling forecasts are usually quite accurate. Pollsters are paid to predict the recorded vote—not the True Vote.

The 2010 midterms are different from the last four elections in that a low Democratic voter turnout is expected. Election fraud will very likely cost the Democrats a few seats in the House and Senate. And the number will be close to the difference between the RV and LV samples. But there may not be RV samples for us to calculate the difference on Election Day. And once again, pollsters will be complimented on how closely their final LV predictions matched the recorded vote.

For the Senate races, polling websites generally display only LV polls. CNN/Time provides both RV and LV samples, but only the LVs are listed at realclearpolitics.com. The Senate RV forecast model is therefore a mix of RV and LV polls. Without a full corresponding RV poll for every LV sample, a comparable analysis is difficult.

In the House, Generic polls have had a more equitable mix of RV and LV samples. But expect a shift to virtually all LV samples as Election Day approaches.

The Fraud Component

In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls underestimated voter turnout and yet closely matched impossible final exit polls and fraudulent recorded vote counts. Projections based on final pre-election RV polls (adjusted for undecided voters) were a close match to the unadjusted preliminary exit polls and the True Vote.

Pre-election Model:
  Recorded vote share = LV poll projection = RV poll projection + Fraud component

Post-election Model:
  Recorded vote share = Final Exit Poll = Unadjusted Preliminary Exit Poll + Fraud component

Applying the formula to the latest Senate and House Generic Polls:

Projected GOP Senate Vote Share:
Share = 51.9 = 49.5 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 2.4% (4.8% margin).

Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud):
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 2 seats (Table 5).

Projected GOP House Vote Share:
Share = 53.5 = 50.9 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 2.6% (5.2% margin)

Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud):
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 4 seats (Table 7).


The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM)

In 2004, there were 22 million voters who did not vote in 2000. Nearly 60% of newly registered voters were Democrats for Kerry. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic tsunami gave them control of both houses. In 2008, there were approximately 15 million new voters, of whom 70% voted for Obama. All pre-election polls interview registered voters. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the full Registered Voter (RV) sample. LV polls exclude most "new" registered voters–first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election.

Most pollsters use the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM), a series of questions regarding past voting history, residential transience, intent to vote, etc. Since students, transients, low-income voters, immigrant new voters, etc. are much more likely to give "No" answers than established, wealthier, non-transient voters, Republicans are more likely to exceed the cutoff than Democrats. A respondent who indicates “yes” to four out of seven questions might be down-weighted to 50% compared to one who answers “yes” to all seven.       bit.ly/a8UYRb

The LVCM assigns a weight of zero to all respondents falling below the cutoff, eliminating them from the sample. But these potential voters have more than a zero probability of voting. The number of "Yes" answers required to qualify as a likely voter is set based on how the pollster wants the sample to turn out. The more Republicans the pollster wants in the sample, the more "Yes" answers are required. This serves to eliminate many Democrats and skews the sample to the GOP.

Undecided Voters, Turnout and Election Fraud

In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote count shares. Projections based on the final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. Undecided voters typically break heavily for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challengers, but many pollsters did not allocate accordingly. Democratic voter turnout was underestimated by the pre-election LV polls (see 2004 Final Pre-election Polls).                   bit.ly/d2yEQh                  bit.ly/claROe               bit.ly/aW4gYX

Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote count, (i.e. the final pre-election LV polls). The underlying assumption is that the recorded vote count is correct (i.e. zero fraud). In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Polls required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (110% and 103%, respectively). In the 2004 Final NEP (13660 respondents), the Bush vote shares were increased dramatically over the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (13047 respondents). For 2008, the NEP media consortium of news outlets FOX, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC has suppressed results of fifty-one unadjusted-state and three un-forced preliminary-national exit polls.        bit.ly/bAc6OK   bit.ly/amsJiB   bit.ly/bRhlz4   bit.ly/diYEJ5   bit.ly/a2j7xl  bit.ly/bsL7lk  bit.ly/dfIPTI

Once again, as in every election cycle, the media avoids the real issues. Martha Coakley won the hand-counts in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s seat but lost to Scott Brown; Vic Rawl won the absentee vote but lost to unknown Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary; Mike Castle won the absentee ballots but lost to Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware GOP Senate primary. But there has not been a peep about any of this in the mainstream media. Apparently, we must just accept the conventional wisdom that even though the votes have vanished in cyberspace and can never be verified, they were not tampered with. The media lockdown is not limited to past stolen elections. The MSM prepares us for election fraud by listing final pre-election LV polls and ignoring RV polls.

Table 1

2010 Midterms: Senate and House Forecast Model
Senate Forecast Simulation Summary   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate    bit.ly/azDXlw 

[bluerum]

1. +

[msongs]

2. democrats COULD do something about vote fraud but choose not to ->

paper ballots counted by hand in public at the precinct level. not gonna happen as a result of any democratic party initiative though...or republican either of course.

[tiptoe]

3. They got it done in Oregon: Vote-by-mail *with* *mandatory* hand recounts of electronic tallies...

Record voter turnouts plus:

No recount conducted in Oregon has ever turned up evidence that a tally machine failed to correctly count votes. A full recount is the ultimate test and with each election we always have at least one or two.

— John Lindback, Director Elections Division, Oregon Secretary of State's Office

 

[tiptoe]

4. The "GOP" (that Susan Eisenhower & 344K known Repubs de-registered) platform is election fraud. nt