9/22 ELECTION MODEL ( TIA ): Obama! 330 EV, 99% win probability

[tiptoe]

2008 ELECTION MODEL
A  Monte Carlo  Electoral  Vote  Simulation

TruthIsAll

Updated: September 22

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

9/22/2008
Aggregate
Average
Projection
Projection
Electoral Vote

Obama
McCain
 47.01 (50.77) 
 45.58 (49.23) 
 48.67 (52.05) 
 44.83 (47.95) 
51.46
48.54
52.57
47.43
 330 
 208 

    

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
                            
Gallup
Rasmussen
Hotline/FD
CNN
Quinnipiac

CBS/NYT
Zogby
Ipsos
Pew Resrch
Newsweek

AP/gFk
FOX News
NBC/WSJ
CBS/NYT
CNN

Registered V
vs     Likely V
Poll Averages

Date
            
9/21
9/21
9/21
9/21
9/16

9/16
9/15
9/15
9/14
9/11

9/10
9/09
9/08
9/07
9/07

Size   
              
2796 RV
3000 LV
915 RV
697 LV
987 LV

800 LV
1008 LV
1046 RV
2307 LV
1038 RV

812 RV
900 RV
1000 RV
655 RV
942 RV

RV avg
LV avg
Total

MoE
         
1.85%
1.79%
3.24%
3.71%
3.12%

3.46%
3.09%
3.03%
2.04%
3.04%

3.44%
3.27%
3.10%
3.83%
3.19%

Obama
            
48
48
47
51
49

49
47
45
46
46

44
42
46
44
48

45.6
48.3
46.7

McCain
            
44
47
42
47
45

44
45
45
46
46

48
45
45
46
48

45.4
45.7
45.5

Other
            
8
5
11
2
6

7
8
10
8
8

8
13
9
10
4

9.0
6.0
7.8

Spread
            
4
1
5
4
4

5
2
0
0
0

(4)
(3)
1
(2)
0

0.1
2.7
1.1

 

Obama
            
48.7
48.5
48.0
48.2
47.2

46.6
45.6
44.6
44.8
44.4

44.8
45.4
45.0
44.6
45.0

McCain
            
44.8
45.0
44.7
45.2
45.0

45.2
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0

46.4
46.6
46.6
48.4
47.2

Spread
            
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.2

1.4
(0.4)
(1.4)
(1.2)
(1.6)

(1.6)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(3.8)
(2.2)

Win Prob
               
98.5
98.0
86.2
80.2
77.3

66.7
44.5
30.9
26.3
28.4

30.9
34.8
29.0
14.8
23.2

 

Obama
            
52.57
52.4
52.4
52.2
51.9

51.5
50.6
50.2
50.3
50.2

50.1
50.2
50.0
48.8
49.7

McCain
            
47.43
47.6
47.6
47.8
48.1

48.5
49.4
49.8
49.7
49.8

49.9
49.8
50.0
51.2
50.3

Spread
            
5.1
4.8
4.8
4.3
3.8

3.0
1.3
0.5
0.6
0.3

0.2
0.4
0.1
(2.4)
(0.6)

Win Prob
               
99.7
99.6
92.7
87.3
88.1

80.5
65.8
56.2
62.1
54.1

51.8
54.8
51.0
27.0
42.2

 

 

Obama’s EV and Popular Vote Win Probability is on the Rise

Assuming that the election is held today (and is fraud-free), the Election Model projects that there is a better than 99% probability that Obama would win the election. His expected electoral vote margin is 330–208 with a 51.46% two-party vote share. He also leads the National model (based on the latest 5 national polls) with 52.57% of the vote — giving him a 99.7% popular vote win probability.

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). View the Election Model Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency chart. The model is a snapshot in time. Ideally, the weighted average vote shares would be identical in both the national and state models. But if they are, it’s just a coincidence; state polls lag the national polls. View the State vs. National Vote Share Projection Trend.

The base case scenario assumes that Obama will win 60% of the undecided vote. And this is conservative; he is presumed to be the challenger, since McSame is running for the third Bush term). Note that the national polls lead the state polls, so that we can expect a rise in 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 99% — again assuming zero fraud, fairly accurate polls with the election held today.

If Obama captures just 50% of the undecided vote, he is expected to win by 311–227 EV with a 50.6% vote share and a 96% win probability. The probability of winning the electoral vote is very close to the probability of winning the popular vote. In other words, if the projected vote share is nearly tied, the probability of winning the electoral vote will also be close to 50%.

Democrats are strongest in high EV urban states, and Republicans are strong in low EV rural states. That’s why Obama can win the Electoral vote with slightly less than 50% of the total popular vote. The sensitivity analysis (see below) shows that if Obama wins 40% of the undecided vote, he will have 50.0% of the 2-party vote, 290 electoral votes and an 80% win probability.

The fivethirtyeight.com site projects Obama with a 311.5–226.5 EV lead and a 74.4% win probability. Obama would surely win more than 74% of the trials in a Monte Carlo simulation with that expected EV split, unless they are factoring in a fraud component without saying so.

As of Sept. 22, electoral-vote.com has Obama leading by 273–265; realclearpolitics has Obama by 219–189 (130 tossup). But the 2008 Election Model (EM) has Obama leading by 330–208. Why the difference?

THE 2008 ELECTION MODEL

Last
Aggregate
5-poll
2-party
2-party
Monte  Carlo
Simulation

Update
State
National
State
National
Expected

9/22/2008
Average
Average
Projection
Projection
Electoral Vote

 
 
 
60% UVA
 
 

Obama
McCain
47.01
45.58
48.67
44.83
51.46
48.54
52.57
47.43
 330 
 208 

 

Nov 1, 2004 Final Election Model
75% UVA
 
 

Kerry
Bush
47.88
46.89
47.80
46.60
51.80
48.20
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%
50.4
49.4
48.4
EV
303
272
240
Vote%
50.2
49.2
48.1
EV
289
257
227
Vote%
49.9
48.9
47.9
EV
274
244
213

 

Sensitivity Analysis — Impact of Aggregate State Projected Vote Share

Undecided Voter Allocation Scenario
Base Case

Obama
40%
50%
60%
75%
80%

 

Projected 2-Party Vote Share

Obama
McCain
50.0
50.0
50.7
49.3
51.46
48.54
52.6
47.4
52.9
47.1

 

MoE
Obama Popular Vote Win Probability (Normdist)

1.0 %
2.0 %
3.0 %
47.9
49.0
49.3
91.9
75.8
68.0
99.78
92.3
82.9
100.0
99.4
95.3
100.0
99.8
97.3

 

Obama Electoral Vote (Monte Carlo - 5000 election trials)

Mean
Median
289.9
289.0
311.2
311.0
330.4
332.0
355.2
358.0
362.2
364.0

Maximum
Minimum
385
210
382
224
400
244
417
268
420
283

 

Obama Electoral Vote Win Probability (Monte Carlo)

Trial Wins
Probability
4009
80.2
4808
96.2
4978
99.56
4999
99.98
5000
100.0

 

95% EV Confidence Interval
Upper
Lower
337
243
358
265
375
286
392
319
396
329

 

States Won
Obama
 
25
 
25
 
29
 
29
 
29
 

 

 

 

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 
 
 
OBAMA vs KERRY
MONTE CARLO  EV  SIMULATION

 

 
 
Pre-Undecided Voter Allocation
 
60% UVA
Projection
75% UVA
Projection
WPE (IM)
 Exit Poll 
Actual
Recorded
 
Obama Projection
vs Kerry

Obama

Obama

Sprd*wt

Battlegrnd

EVote
 
State
      

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
       
Poll
Date
        
       
9/17
9/17
9/14
7/14
9/14

9/17
9/16
9/13
9/15
9/17

9/17
9/12
9/9
9/17
9/17

9/18
9/10
9/12
9/12
9/10

9/5
8/5
9/17
9/18
9/16

9/15
9/8
9/17
9/21
9/15

9/16
9/16
9/15
9/18
9/8

9/17
9/11
9/15
9/18
9/13

9/17
9/9
8/20
9/16
9/13

9/13
9/21
9/10
9/16
9/17
9/10
       
 
EV
       
 538 
       
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
 47.0 %
 306 
       
34
38
39
37
52

48
55
90
53
45

42
63
27
56
46

54
31
37
38
50

52
49
53
52
37

45
42
34
45
51

51
50
52
46
41

47
32
48
47
59

45
37
32
44
28

58
49
48
45
50
34
 
McCain
 45.6 %
  232  
       
60
55
56
47
36

42
37
9
42
46

54
32
68
38
47

41
63
55
54
40

38
37
42
44
55

49
53
60
46
45

42
43
40
47
55

45
64
43
45
36

51
54
56
54
64

36
46
43
49
47
62
      
 
Diff
1.43
 74  
     
(26)
(17)
(17)
(10)
16

6
18
81
11
(1)

(12)
31
(41)
18
(1)

13
(32)
(18)
(16)
10

14
12
11
8
(18)

(4)
(11)
(26)
(1)
6

9
7
12
(1)
(14)

2
(32)
5
2
23

(6)
(17)
(24)
(10)
(36)

22
3
5
(4)
3
(28)
 
 
Obama
51.46
 364 
       
37.6
42.2
42.0
46.6
59.2

54.0
59.8
90.6
56.0
50.4

44.4
66.0
30.0
59.6
50.2

57.0
34.6
41.8
42.8
56.0

58.0
57.4
56.0
54.4
41.8

48.6
45.0
37.6
50.4
53.4

55.2
54.2
56.8
50.2
43.4

51.8
34.4
53.4
51.8
62.0

47.4
42.4
39.2
45.2
32.8

61.6
52.0
53.4
48.6
51.8
36.4 
Final  Kerry
51.80
 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
52.49
 353 

42.3
40.6
45.0
45.7
60.7

50.6
62.9
91.5
61.9
51.5

42.4
58.7
32.6
57.1
40.8

51.2
37.5
40.3
44.0
56.1

60.2
66.4
55.0
56.3
49.5

49.5
37.6
37.4
53.4
57.8

58.1
53.6
65.1
50.0
35.0

54.6
34.2
51.9
55.7
62.7

46.2
36.3
43.6
42.4
28.4

67.2
50.3
57.4
40.7
52.6
32.9
    
       
JK Vote
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
    
 
Final Proj
(0.34)
 27 

(4.4)
2.5
(6.8)
(3.9)
3.5

3.3
3.3
4.3
(1.7)
(1.9)

(2.1)
13.5
(8.3)
2.6
9.0

2.5
(4.7)
(1.0)
(6.2)
(2.2)

1.7
(13.4)
1.8
(0.6)
(5.5)

(0.6)
3.8
0.4
(0.1)
1.9

(0.8)
3.7
(3.2)
1.0
0.9

(0.4)
(1.9)
(1.1)
(2.0)
0.0

3.2
(4.1)
(10.1)
5.2
3.6

3.4
3.5
(1.6)
(0.9)
(3.0)
2.9
    
 
Unadj EP
(1.03)
 11 
 
(4.7)
1.6
(3.0)
0.9
(1.5)

3.4
(3.1)
(0.9)
(5.9)
(1.1)

2.0
7.3
(2.6)
2.5
9.4

5.8
(2.9)
1.5
(1.2)
(0.1)

(2.2)
(9.0)
1.0
(1.9)
(7.7)

(0.9)
7.4
0.2
(3.0)
(4.4)

(2.9)
0.6
(8.3)
0.2
8.4

(2.8)
0.2
0.6
(3.9)
(0.7)

1.2
6.1
(4.4)
2.8
4.4

(5.6)
1.7
(4.0)
7.9
(0.8)
3.5
Exp EV
330.5
 33.5 

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
55.0

8.8
7.0
3.0
3.0
15.6

0.0
4.0
0.0
21.0
5.9

7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0

10.0
12.0
17.0
9.8
0.0

2.7
0.0
0.0
2.9
3.8

14.9
4.9
31.0
8.1
0.0

16.2
0.0
6.7
17.0
4.0

0.8
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0

3.0
10.9
10.5
1.2
8.1
0.0
    
Win Prob
99.8
 99.6 

0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
100.0

97.5
100.0
100.0
99.8
57.8

0.3
100.0
0.0
100.0
53.9

100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.8

100.0
100.0
99.8
98.4
0.0

24.6
0.7
0.0
57.8
95.2

99.5
98.0
100.0
53.9
0.1

81.1
0.0
95.2
81.1
100.0

10.1
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0

100.0
83.6
95.2
24.6
81.1
0.0
    
Rank
100%
     







2.4



19.2





7.8










0.9


4.9


3.6
1.1


0.9

10.7


12.5

2.5
13.1


2.1






6.9
3.9
2.2
5.3

    
Evote
17
 192 







9



27





11










10


11


5
4


5

15


20

7
21


8






13
11
5
10

    
Flip (*)
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
    

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.

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 simply assign the 100 EV to McCain. But that is an oversimplification: 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.

• 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 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. 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 Preliminary NEP by 51–48%.    ( 13,047 random sample, 1% MoE )

The mix was changed to 37–37 in the Final NEP  to 'force' a match to the Recorded vote;

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

Likewise, the Gore/Bush 'Voted 2000' weights were changed from 39–41 to 37–43 in the Final    ('13047' & '13660' here).

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, 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.

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

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.
Read more about the 1988-2004 Election Calculator here.

The 2008 Election Calculator projects Obama will win the True Vote by 71 – 59m.
Read more about the 2008 Election Calculator here.


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. Read more here.

Apparently, the MSM and election fraud naysayers are unaware that millions of ballots are either uncounted or stuffed. And that these anomalies have always favored a Bush: in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004. That is one reason 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 about 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. 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.

c) 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.

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 to 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 the 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 Pre-Election 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. 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:

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



• 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 )



• The expected electoral vote EVS(i) for each state (win probability times electoral vote):
  
  
  EVS(i)  =  P(i)* EV(i)



• The total expected electoral vote EV as the sum of the state electoral votes:
  
  
  EV  =  Σ EVS(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 EV win probability is just a simple division: the number of winning election trials divided by 5000 (total trials).

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.

 

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

[msongs]

1. so, how did this turn out in 2004 after the fix was put in? nt

[SoCalDemocrat]

60. Sorry to say the simulation did not factor in cheating

There was so much widespread, varied forms of voter fraud you have to factor it it.

Watch the documentary "Uncounted" and see for yourselves.

[bleever]

2. K&R to pore over later.

[Demeter]

3. You're Just Trying to Make Me Feel Better.

Thanks! I appreciate it.

[tiptoe]

11. this chart is enthusing:

?click">State vs National Vote Share Projection Trend


Looks like the State Trend may be turning up.

[foo_bar]

4. four years ago at this time:

9/22 HOT ARG! ELECTION MODEL: KERRY 306 EV, 94% WIN PROB, 50.8% VOTE

I told you all last night that today would be
(A)nother (R)eally (G)reat day for Kerry.

Well, here's ARG updates teamed with the latest Zogby.

Kerry is not that far from his Aug. peak of 332 EV and 52% (99.9% prob).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x885179

That's why I stick with Zogby and ARG, etc. I've stopped blindly incoporating the latest poll that Votemaster puts up - unless t makes sense. Call me a cherry-picker. I throw away the bad ones. That's why my numbers seem so far out there for Kerry. He's doing a lot better than the Repub polls say he is.

As far as regression is concerned, I would never use it to predict based on polling results. A moving average trend is a better and simpler approach. But I don't even use that.

I prefer to keep it simple. I just included a description of the methodology in the site. Read it.

The models are in agreement: Kerry is closing the deal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1039319#1039485

Obama has some serious catching up to do if 337 EVs and 99.99% win probability = losing the white house:

Final Projection

Last update: Nov.1, 2004 7:00 pm

Kerry 337 EV / 51.8%

Bush 201 EV / 48.2% <...>

Based on the average of eighteen national polls, the National Vote Projection model calculates that Kerry has a 99.99% probability of winning a popular vote majority with 51.63% of the vote.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/

I don't know if this a deliberate anti-GOTV trick, sowing overconfidence before every election and despair immediately after, but I like Skinner's new color coding system. Definitely an amber alert on this one:

If this is a "reply from TIA", why is TIA in the third person?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=203&topic_id=505612 (me, addressing tiptoe-as-TIA-as-not-TIA)

His main "online residence" can't be linked here, but you may/should be able to google it.

His Election Model is superb

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7121622#7123266 (TIA-in-the-3rd-person praising TIA, or what would be called a "shill" on a commerce site)

The weird part is you take umbrage when people *don't* refer to you as TIA:

Also, can you tell me how a conspiracy that involved hundreds of election supervisors, many of whom are Democratic was kept secret to everybody but you and TIA?

And if you and TIA know who these conspirators are don't you have an affirmative obligation to turn their names over to the attorney generals of the respective states as elections are a state matter? (- DemocratSinceBirth)

And using cheap rhetoric "you and TIA". (- tiptoe)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7104521&mesg_id=7111965

If "you and TIA" isn't an accurate depiction of this mind meld, what's the correct subject pronoun?

[tiptoe]

6. Source for TIA's original postings are linked at the top. I just add the html. n/t

[foo_bar]

9. I think "mom cat" was TS'd under similar circumstances, but YMMV

(Re: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=143586)

If you can keep the puppet farce above water, more power to you (the person who gets mad on TIA's behalf using TIA's own grudges); I just don't want anyone taking the stuff seriously enough to get overconfident over phony 99% predictions achieved by throwing loaded dice into a simulation. A freeper could probably make a 99% McCain simulation just by changing your assumptions (let's assume I'm speaking directly to TIA, since "tiptoe" has yet to post anything suggesting a discrete personality), such as undecided voters always breaking in your favor by a nice round number; since the national and state polls are going our way right now it doesn't take much to turn something like 77% into 99% (and 99% into 99.999999%), but I can't say I've ever seen a TIA post that had us losing any election at any point in time.

No, I leave them out because they are BIASED for Bush. Why include them if they skew the averages against Kerry?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1998204#1998844

There has been misinformation put out by a number of sources
(AP, MSNBC, FOX, CNN) regarding Kerry's current poll numbers
and his prospects of winning.

Hopefully this will clear things up.

KERRY IS AHEAD IN VIRTUALLY EVERY NATIONAL POLL.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2060158

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. well, she got into posting TIA's direct responses

tiptoe's approach seems to be not only to avoid that, but to avoid engaging arguments at all. I see he loosened up a bit in that thread.

In fairness to TIA, I'm pretty sure I came across a post from sometime in 2004 where Kerry was behind in his projections, and someone said, 'I don't like these numbers very much,' and TIA responded something like, 'Wait, you will.'

[foo_bar]

16. I try to give the benefit of the doubt when it's still attainable

I guess the "sorry Charlie, 50% UVA breaks the Law" replies took long enough to posit an intermediary (unless you suppose there's a second person on earth who groks TIA's "method" but defends it anyway), but that's where "mom cat" comes in: what's the point of having (DU) rules if they don't apply to Ouija board accounts? I guess all sockpuppetry is a form of deception, but coming back to go "nyah" at the folks who can keep it relatively civil seems like bad precedent.

If TIA had Kerry losing posts they must have sunk like rocks, although now that you mention it I sorta recall sub-50% projections in the early days before the poll-of-only-polls-we're-winning. And yeah, I suppose I should praise the OP for using more reasonable assumptions for the hyperbolic "99%!1" than cherrypicking data outright like the last revision, although it sort of doesn't matter when you can turn "86 of 88" into "1 in 79,010,724,999,066,700,000,000" just by subjecting the same nonrandom input to a false assumption of Gaussian distribution, which is sorta like running a brazillion monte carlo trials on a tiny nonrandom data set with a UVA constant instead of using the model to test something stochastic in nature like turnout.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. I guess I missed those

No snark, need I add. I check in on these threads from time to time, but it doesn't reward the effort. I really have never been able to decide whether tiptoe actually reads TIA's stuff or not.

I'm ambivalent about the rule issue. Tough call for the mods. Or maybe I'm just ambivalent.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. sort of like a lunar lander of sorts

Well, you can probably help me figure out exactly what I'm thinking of. It can deal with a certain range of data inputs quasi-autonomously. When out-of-range data arrive, it emits a randomly generated insult and contacts the mother ship for further instructions.

[foo_bar]

52. perhaps a mars orbiter

The navigation error arose because a NASA subcontractor (Lockheed Martin) used Imperial units (pound-seconds) instead of the metric units (newton-seconds) as specified by NASA. <...>

The problem arose partly because the software had been adapted from use on the earlier Mars Climate Orbiter, without proper testing before launch, and partly because the navigation data provided by this software was not cross-checked while in flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

I'm sure the contractor still blames NASA for expecting conformity with the rest of the scientific universe. Take us to your kiloleader!

[tiptoe]

17. "I can't say I've ever seen a TIA post that had us losing any election at any point in time."

By "losing" presumably you mean "Obama win probabilities less than 50%": I see 27.0% and 42.2% in the National Model's 2-party Projections in the OP (9/07). Those are 5-poll Moving Average figures.

The Election Model doesn't "predict"; it only addresses probabilities of Obama winning "if the election were held today" and "if it is fraud free".

ETA: The model also lays out a Sensitivity Analysis for numerous Fraud scenarios, a number of which generate Obama losses.

[foo_bar]

23. sorry, who am I speaking with?

If you're "channeling" TIA, "losing" refers to any post (in the last 4 years, OTOH reminds me) suggesting a realistic chance of losing any contest in the future tense we wanted to win, aka a semblance of objectivity (e.g., "Kerry has a 99.99% probability of winning" "The models are in agreement: Kerry is closing the deal." "KERRY IS AHEAD IN VIRTUALLY EVERY NATIONAL POLL." source). If tiptoe is in fact a separate person from TIA feel free to respond personally, although I can swear you said before you're just the html guy and can't address TIA-themed questions, but you appear to have "become" TIA again in post #22, "Perfect! You should be able to explain to OTOH" (which is funny because OTOH's right here on this thread and it's still *crickets*)

it only addresses probabilities of Obama winning "if the election were held today" and "if it is fraud free".

Among other unstated assumptions, like a 60% undecideds-for-the-good-guy constant being rooted in empirical observation, or the model itself being fraud or false assumption free absent peer review. The 2004 version was crooked as I've pointed out ad nauseam, but I think the contemporary version is merely FUBAR if you have to meta-cherrypick 99% figures instead of a "just the facts" approach like your competitors who are taken more seriously (evidently to feed the addiction to bullying people in the third person but whimpering away when confronted). You can do the tiptoe cha-cha until you lose balance again, but somebody might have to take ownership for stuff you've actually said as tiptoe.

ETA: The model also lays out a Sensitivity Analysis for numerous Fraud scenarios, a number of which generate Obama losses.

That's nice. If you replaced "Fraud scenario" with "light turnout scenario", would any meaning be lost? When you can answer that question, you might see the peril of initiating the scientific method with a conclusion first (or the Socratic method with "do you still beat your wife?"), and perhaps enter on the path to being read by scientists who aren't DUers and/or polemicists who haven't already decided to agree with you out of limbic convenience.

[tiptoe]

25. "which is funny because OTOH's right here" OTOH's sur-reality has already 'batted' and struck out.

...no matter how often he changes the words..."false recall"..."misreporting"...

"However, we do know that in the 2000-2004 NES panel study, in fact 14% of people who said in 2000 that they voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they voted for Bush. .."

It's not the facts per se; it's the interpretation of those facts and the appropriateness of their use in specific contexts. But OTOH already knows that, and DSB, who speaks of "social science and political research methods", might be expected to know as well.

But apparently, foo_bar, you don't know that, which makes you the perfect audience for OTOH: "If you replaced "Fraud scenario" with "light turnout scenario", would any meaning be lost?"

BTW, do you recall OTOH's comment that he pored through all the NES panel studies to find his example 2000-2004 study?

And it's "With whom am I speaking?"

[foo_bar]

31. you know I enjoy a good OCD flamewar, but "whom am I speaking with"?

Pied-piping is the moving of a preposition (along with its WH-object (who, which) to the front of a (i) direct question, (ii) and indirect question, or (iii) or a relative clause. Examples of these three situations follow; in each example, the pied-piped form precedes the usual form:

To whom did you give it? Who did you give it to?

http://www.orlapubs.com/AL/L42.html

Note: In spoken English, one often places the preposition at the end of the sentence, in which case one uses "who" instead of "whom"

* Who are you thinking about?
* Who did you go out with?

http://www.ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/shared/references/english/33.htm

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. huh?!

My comment that I pored through all the NES panel studies to find my example?

How many NES panel studies across two presidential elections do you suppose there have been, you lovable goofball, you?

Silly me, I analyzed the one that actually studied the election under dispute.

And then I analyzed every post-presidential-election NES survey between 1948 and 2004 -- one didn't have the previous-election question, so that left 14. In all 14, the previous winner's margin in retrospect was larger than his margin in the official returns. The results were slightly less one-sided in the GSS, but Reagan I was the only administration of eight for which the last-measured retrospective margin was smaller than the official margin. W.'s retrospective 2000 margin was positive in the GSS in 2002, 2004, and (we now know) 2006 -- as it was in the 2004 NES.

And, oh yes, the previous winner's retrospective margin was larger than the official margin in all ten of the exit polls for which I could obtain data.

But I suppose all these data have difficulties as to "the appropriateness of their use in specific contexts," so we should all trust TIA's ass instead?

[tiptoe]

35. "so we should all trust TIA's ass instead?" Certainly not yours. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. that's your best answer? that's wretched

Here's the thing about science: if you don't believe me, you can check the data yourself. Or you can keep on blowing smoke. Your call.

[tiptoe]

44. (sorry, it was the least time-consuming -- was in middle of things to do n/t)

[OnTheOtherHand]

62. "sorry, it was the least time-consuming"?

I'm a pretty generous guy, so I was prepared to put the best possible interpretation on that. And I still am. But my "best possible" is plummeting.

Yes, of course, it's always faster to jam your fingers in your ears and chant "neener, neener, you're a wiener" than it is actually to engage substance. And in the hands of the Bush administration, it was substantially successful for years. But who wants to live that way? and why?

By the way, do you really think that your posts are a call to action because one sentence in a seven-page post over a month ago says that Obama needs to register voters and get them to vote? (No, I don't care how many other similar posts the same sentence appeared in.) What would happen if you actually did call people to action? Depending on the action, that might actually be a good thing, right? Something to think about, if you've preserved any autonomous agency.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. oh, hey, how about that

foo once got you to say something substantive, sort of:

Have you given any thought to what's wrong with using the Panel Study OTOH offered as an example of "false recall"?

First, let's be clear: it doesn't matter whether we construe it as "false recall" or not. The question is whether people report their past votes accurately, and if not, whether there is a somewhat predictable bias to their misreporting.

The evidence -- from several different sources including that panel study -- is strong that misreporting occurs, and that people are more likely to misreport having voted for rather than against the previous winner. So I remain curious why you have nothing to say about it. Or maybe that's the reason. Let's see.

ETA: Well, heck, while we're at it... you asked, "Do you really find plausible a position that 1 out of 7 Gore-2000 voters defected to Bush in 2004 (possibly OTOH's most absurd reconciliation of the 2004 recorded vote count and Bush's 3M mandate)?" Well, it's not my "position" -- we don't have enough evidence to know the actual proportion. However, we do know that in the 2000-2004 NES panel study, in fact 14% of people who said in 2000 that they voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they voted for Bush. So I'm curious about the basis of your confidence that that could not possibly be true for the electorate as a whole.

Bottom line: I'm curious whether you believe yourself, and if so, why.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. He Still Hasn't Explained How Bush* Stole 3,000,000 Votes

That would require a vast conspiracy that of necessity would include Republican as well as Democratic election supervisors...And the more people involved in a conspiracy the greater the probability of discovery...

I want Obama to win as much as any DUer but that doesn't mean I am willing to stand social science and political research methods on its head...

[tiptoe]

22. "social science and political research methods" Perfect! You should be able to explain to OTOH

what's unsound in using the 2000-2004 Panel Study as an example of "false recall"...oh, excuse me, now it's "misreporting" voting behavior.

There's hope and use for you, yet, DSB!

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. that would be useful, since evidently you can't n/t

[tiptoe]

28. "would incl Rep [&] Dem election supervisors" Boards of Elections, too? Rad RW & DLC Dems?? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. This Is The Greatest Conspiracy Story Never Told

So Bush* was able to separate DLC Democratic election supervisors from garden variety Democratic election supervisors in his massive conspiracy to steal 3,000,000 votes...I'm (almost) tempted to say I want somebody that smart to run the country...

[tiptoe]

37. Yeh, kinda befitting Jim Lampley's early-on assessment:

The Biggest Story of Our Lives

At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.

People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election.

And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted.
...

Karl Rove isn't capable of conceiving and executing such a grandiose crime? Wake up. They did it. The silence of traditional media on this subject is enough to establish their newfound bankruptcy. The revolution will have to start here. I challenge every other thinker at the Huffington Post: is there any greater imperative than to reverse this crime and reestablish democracy in America? Why the mass silence? Let's go to work with the circumstantial evidence, begin to narrow from the outside in, and find some witnesses who will turn. That's how they cracked Watergate. This is bigger, and I never dreamed I would say that in my baby boomer lifetime.

Some people sure sound worried, even the Presidential candidate, controlled by Radical Right-Winging Texas Oil, incl Hunt Oil:

BREAKING NEWS!!! McCAIN WANTS TO DELAY THE DEBATES FRIDAY

Olbermann to fill in for McCain tonight on Letterman!

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. "the sportbook odds in Las Vegas"

OK, where exactly would I look that up?

[Awsi Dooger]

46. There were no sportsbook odds in Las Vegas; no betting allowed on elections of any type

I took apart Lampley's claim in the Election Reform forum a couple of years ago. You probably remember that. TIA might not have seen it during the period he was sick.

Lampley's version is pure make believe. After the fact, he apparently heard that Kerry had reached 1/2 favoritism on Intrade after news broke of the early exit polls, which caused a wave of Kerry betting, including, sad to report, myself and my friend Paul.

Instead of merely reporting it that way, Lampley tried to get cute and inject himself into the story, claiming real-time viewing of Las Vegas sportsbook odds and offshore odds. Minor problem: You can't bet on politics legally in Nevada. Sportsbooks have never been allowed to book so-called elections, not even sporting elections like the Heisman Trophy or MVP awards. They can only book events decided on the field of play.

I remember in 1992 when Jay Kornegay of the Imperial Palace, now running the sportsbook at the Las Vegas Hilton, tried to have fun and stick presidential odds on his board. He's a right winger and somehow listed Bush 41 as favorite over Clinton. I told him he was out of his mind but Kornegay left it on the board, no betting but prominent on the sportsbook main board in block letters. Tourists were staring at it all day. Pretty soon it got local attention including the Las Vegas Review Journal.

The gaming commission was not amused. They stormed the Imperial Palace and confronted the sportsbook personnel. I can still remember Kornegay's expression, like he had seen a ghost. That was the one and only time I've ever seen a sportsbook mess with the rule.

I'm still annoyed I was on vacation in Alaska in late spring 2005 when Lampley wrote that column in Huffington Post and the merits were debated on (then) Mystery Pollster and by Byron York, among others. None of them realized what I did, that Lampley's article flunked the first criteria, the basic truth of his claim.

Even if Nevada sportsbooks were allowed to book political outcomes, Lampley's version would still have been an impossibility. An event like that is closed at the beginning of the day. That's why his offshoot that he checked offshore odds is also complete garbage. Those player-vs.-house sites don't field bets late on election day, amidst leaks like early exit polls or other potential indications. The only type of wagering that remains open until the final gun, and can sway wildly as perception changes, is the man-to-man option like Intrade or Tradesports.

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. I remembered, but couldn't find your long exposition

So I'm glad you posted this -- with the bonus story about Kornegay. Your word on betting means a bit more than mine.

I never read the Mystery Pollster thread at the time, but rereading it, I might offer some consolation. Stipulating that Lampley isn't simply a pathological liar, I would guess that he did check some 'man-to-man' site, or (perhaps more likely) that he talked with someone who had and then got a bit freehand with his recounting. Regardless, it isn't really crucial to his argument, although it does change the locus of judgment from "oddsmakers" to the betting market at large (if I understand how these boards work). He quickly moves from appealing to oddsmakers' scientific authority to appealing to, well, his readers' scientific authority.

But the kernel of the argument is the stuff about polling accuracy in general and exit poll accuracy in particular. Well, at least that's how I read it. If he were right that, for instance, "NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began," then I would not care much whether he was confused about what (if anything) he checked at 5 pm on election day. But, of course, he is risibly wrong. I do wonder how he could be so wrong with such enthusiasm.

(I never really thought about the "1948" except to laugh at it, but I suppose he may have been thinking of the first National Election Study -- which wasn't an exit poll, of course. As for the rest....)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Has Anybody Mentioned That Raw Exit Polls Results Showed Dukakis Beating Bush Pere?

~

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. it's actually kind of a cheap response, because...

it hinges on the interpretation of "raw." If memory serves, one of the 1988 exit polls (CBS, I'm pretty sure) did have more Dukakis respondents than Bush respondents, but that apparently is because of a deliberate oversample in black precincts. The model projections were closer to the outcome, although the network did subsequently blow one state call. I think CBS blew Illinois, and another network blew Maryland. But overall, the 1988 exits were less discrepant than the 1992 exit poll.

Ruy Teixeira wrote a little "President Dukakis?" blurb soon after the election, and it made a good point, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Many people are under the impression that they saw, or have since seen, "raw" results from the 2004 exit polls as posted on cnn.com. Those never were "raw" results. They are based on a composite model which incorporates demographic and probability-of-selection weights, past results, and pre-election expectations.

[Awsi Dooger]

58. I like Jim Lampley quite a bit

He went to my high school in Miami, albeit more than a decade earlier. No one is more enthusiastic about the Olympics than Lampley, and his political tilt moves him even higher in my book.

I'm sure your supposition is exactly correct, that Lampley learned some interesting info that hadn't been widely reported -- Kerry's 1/2 (bet 2 to win 1) man-to-man favoritism late on election afternoon -- and took that more than a bit freehand. I was surprised he didn't know the gaming commission rule after spending so much time in Las Vegas covering fights. Actually, judging in professional boxing is one of the few vague areas of that rule, an accepted exception. When there isn't a knockout, a vote decides the outcome, not a score.

To tell you the truth, I don't remember Lampley's argument or much of what Blumenthal or York countered with. I didn't even realize Lampley spotlighted exit polls. I think I was going nuts after reading his opening nonsense claim. York was preoccupied with pointing out that Giacomo was a huge longshot in the recent Kentucky Derby. Oddsmakers butchered that one, he claimed, so no reason they couldn't have whiffed the presidential odds. I was desperate for someone to get to the point, even in an obscure comment, that Lampley's version was impossible.

Those betting markets do a great job of estimating probability at a point in time. I've all but given up on playing Tradesports during a game. If a late TD is scored the odds shift remarkably quickly to the exact range I gage as the new percentage. But in politics an early exit poll leak obviously isn't as absolute as points on a scoreboard. My friend Paul and I understood that. I remember our frantic brief phone calls very well. I was gone at GOTV and he was quickly relaying the early exit polls and rapidly shifting Intrade odds. We picked out a price and played it, estimating we had about a 10% edge. It wasn't until I got home and looked at the early exit polls in print, and realized many of them were absurd like New Hampshire and North Carolina, that I was certain Kerry was doomed. When Paul called me, both of us were fixated on Ohio and Florida and we failed to step back and look at the big picture, ridiculous margins everywhere. Hell, we were gamblers who thought we had an edge and a brief window of opportunity. I've never claimed it couldn't happen again.

Obviously I tend to get miffed and carried away when someone botches a sports betting reference on a major forum. Same thing happened the other day, when the 538 guy got middling a pointspread confused with scalping a money line and I posted some rambling responses at work, literally turning around in my chair in mid afternoon so the boss couldn't see what I was typing. :rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. yeah, I saw those

FWIW, I thought his main point was just that Intrade had a very different margin than other sites -- the right way of investing to beat that margin was not my main interest. (And I didn't think the post had anything to do with polls.)

But I totally understand how a ridiculous initial claim can distract one from whatever else someone might have been trying to say. At this point you must know at least five things someone can say about exit polls that are (almost) guaranteed to elicit a response from me, and which have basically nothing to do with whether Kerry won, much less election reform. I just can't stand the stupid.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Isn't It Enough To Perform Transparent, Scientifically Acceptable Simulations To Predict Winners?

Why do we have to be Pollyannas and Luddites?

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. and lots of them in New York

I love the way that Kerry led in New York by 15-18 points, according to the last four polls, and then somehow surged to a 31-point victory (as revealed by the exit polls), except that employees all over the state rigged the lever machines so that he would only win by 18 points after all. It doesn't get much more insidious than that. Who would ever suspect it? Who would ever believe it?

:shrug:

It still amazes me that with so many real problems, some people insist on peddling this shtuff instead.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. I Think We're Being A Bit Rough On TIA And His Doppelgänger, TipToe

It's clear he/she has a large emotional investment in a Democratic win but it's not helpful to come up with models that defy all the rules of scientific inquiry...

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. awwwwwwww n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

5. TIA, you're allowed to leave stuff out

Brevity. Hit the basics. This is like a recitation of everything you've printed since 2004.

I like that you've moved to a more realistic 51-52% range, off the 54.5% nonsense from the last time I scanned one of these. But 60% of the undecideds is not warranted in an open race.

[tiptoe]

10. Awsi, you're allowed to skip over material you're not interested in (...others might be.) n/t

[rainbow4321]

7. Still feeling good about the TX stats..only 10 point lead for McLame

I mean, we are talking TX here. And this most likely doesn't include new voters not connected with the HUGE surge in voter registration over the last month or the ones between **now and Oct 6th**.
Do I think it will go blue..realistically, no. But the thought of TX repukes sweating even just a LITTLE bit makes me soooooooo happy. Plus who knows how this will effect the local candidates!!!

[tiptoe]

15. Kerry projected 40% & Exit-polled 42% in TX ('recorded' 38%), so Obama @ 45% is 'ahead' of '04 pace.

The '04 Exit Poll was the first Preliminary one, unadjusted ('WPE').

See the State Model Projections table (2-party vote shares)

Also, trend is rising, with State Model lagging National: State vs National Vote Share Projection Trend

[tiptoe]

8. correction, 2nd pgph, numbers should be: "...Obama won 4978 of 5000 Monte Carlo simulation

election trials. His win probability is therefore 99.56% (4978/5000)"

[tiptoe]

12. 52-43 Obama, ABC/WaPo Poll yet to be included in National Model. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

18. Thanks for disproving the adequacy of your model....

EDIT: Stick with a pro: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Nate Doesn't Have A Finger On The Scale.

That being said if the election was tomorrow I would literally bet (all) on Obama but it isn't...Anybody who thinks they can call an election forty or so days out is on drugs!

[tiptoe]

21. "Anybody who thinks they can call an election forty or so days out is on drugs!" You're not implying

...are you, TIA's model offers predictions "40 or so days out"?

[tiptoe]

24. NOT! PROVE that TIA's EV and Win Probability Calcs are wrong. PROVE 538.com's are correct.

Both TIA's and 538.com's models use the same state data, so their differences reside in methodology.

From 9/20 ELECTION MODEL: 98.5% OBAMA EV WIN PROBABILITY (4926 WINS/5000 SIMULATION TRIALS)

Obama’s EV and Popular Vote Win Probability

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 (McSame is running for the third Bush term).

View the Election Model Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency chart. Note that 4926 (98.5%) of the 5000 simulated election trials are over 270 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.

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 in 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%.

Tell us what you find after:

1. Calculating the state win probabilities assuming

a) 50/50 split in the undecided vote
b) 60/40 split in the undecided vote, favoring Obama

2. Comparing TIA's Election Model state win-probabilities to those of 538.com.
3. Using the state win-probabilties to calculate an Expected EV.
4. Running a 5000-election trial Monte Carlo simulation using the state win probabilities.

Go for it! Prove TIA wrong and 538 correct

[BlooInBloo]

45. This has nothing to do with whether or not 538 (the pro) is correct....

A model predicting 99% probability of Obama winning is prima faciae defective.

Answers spit out by mathematical models have to pass the laugh test. That's not even close. Even if Obama was running unopposed that probably wouldn't pass the laugh test. 99% win probability isn't in the same ballpark, same league, or even the same *sport* as the laugh test.

[tiptoe]

49. You got to be kidding: 538 doesn't even seem to factor election fraud...another 'Ostrich Model' n/t

[woolldog]

26. tiptoe, I have a feeling

that if I ever need someone to give me an equation proving the existence of God, then you're my guy.

[Hawkeye-X]

30. With McCain's latest stunt backfiring - I expect nothing more than a true landslide

With Republicans sitting at home, shaking their heads, "How did we end up with this numbskull?"

Hawkeye-X

[tiptoe]

38. The next week of polls for TIA's National model may be amaaaazing, n/t

[tiptoe]

41. McCain's people count on Election Fraud: "If just 2% of votes cast are uncounted (2.74% 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." -- a TIA fraud scenario


His campaign managers certainly know these Debate-delay and Canceled-appeareance antics are negative advertisements in any honest election.


Fraud...and/or planning another terror event. McCain decides nothing; he's just a tool.



This is ILLEGAL: 1st Brigade Army Combat Team to begin US tour on Oct 1

[foo_bar]

53. they also depend on depressing the turnout

All of your manifestos run on one of two tracks, "we're winning by so much you barely need to register to vote!" and "everything is so rigged that we might as well give up!"; if your thoughts were widely read, what do you think the effect of your gloom vs. 99...% tracts would be?

The fraudulence of the 2004 election is unrelated to your 2004 model's predictive capability, which was zilch since you threw out any polling data that didn't "fit" (i.e., had * leading), and you got banned a half dozen times for being a paranoid jerkass even to the mods at the time, as you were on KOS, so an unambivalent thumbs down on further degrading the signal:noise with the dirty pool or trick that never ends. Giving yourself fantastic reviews for years under an alias confirms the lack of good faith going into the input side of the equation: if this were ebay or a commerce site you'd be instabanned as a shill bidder, and if you mentioned any of your other insane methods ("I have also used this method to calculate the probability that...at least 15 JFK witnesses would meet unnatural deaths in the year following the assasination") we'd be reading this on the 9/11 forum, but for some reason crapping on elections is fair play.

[tiptoe]

55. foo_bar: your incessant delusional ID-implication aside, you misrepresent TIA text when you write:

"All of your manifestos run on one of two tracks, 'we're winning by so much you barely need to register to vote!' and 'everything is so rigged that we might as well give up!'; if your thoughts were widely read, what do you think the effect of your gloom vs. 99...% tracts would be?"

TIA has REPEATED NUMEROUS times in his Election Model posts the following -- info I've highlighted EVERY time so readers couldn't POSSIBLY miss it (giving me suspicion your misrepresentations on DU of a former member's posts might be deliberate, assuming, that is, you've read the "manifestos" you describe):

OBAMA NEEDS A MASSIVE VOTER REGISTRATION AND GOTV EFFORT TO OVERCOME THE FRAUD.     8/22 ELECTION MODEL: OBAMA AT 335EV. BUT THAT'S BEFORE ELECTION FRAUD (8/22,8/14,8/7,7/31 ...)

and

NOT ONE ELECTION WEBSITE, POLLSTER OR MEDIA PUNDIT EVER MENTIONS THE FRAUD FACTOR.     8/29 ELECTION MODEL (TIA): OBAMA EV: 282,301,331,342 (ONE IS CORRECT) (8/22)

TIA's election model approach is not ostrich-like, i.e. one that pretends Election Fraud doesn't exist and/or ignores it altogether as a factor of election outcomes. The same characterization wouldn't apply to innocent readers and millions of voters who are tacitly dealt an "adjustment" of a professionally-conducted ('random sample'..."1% MoE") preliminary exit poll to match a recorded vote count in a Final "poll", a vote-count 'trusted first, matched, tested later' (...with the relevant data for which testing never being made available for analysis by independent experts). Again, TIA alerts in many of his posts:

"Forewarned is forearmed."

Those TIA postings aren't "doom and gloom" but reality and a call to arms "to overcome the fraud", as was accomplished in 2006 — to a degree.

The Obama campaign paid attention to the semi-successful 2006 midterm "Democratic Tsunami" (which TIA analysed) and hasn't had it's "head in the sand" since: Obama to Unveil “Massive” Nationwide Voter Registration Drive (Friday, April 25th, 2008)

Meanwhile, a heads-up RFK Jr alerts on 9/23: Hundreds Of Thousands Of Votes Are Being Stolen RIGHT NOW (RFK Jr-on-Air America)

...while your cohort, OTOH, believes: this is more overwrought than helpful

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. umm, yo, I'm elsewhere on the thread

Perhaps you've found that your arguments with me go better when I don't actually participate?

If you want to discuss the extent to which election fraud actually exists, no one is stopping you.

This is pretty ironic:

The Obama campaign paid attention to the semi-successful 2006 midterm "Democratic Tsunami" (which TIA analysed) and hasn't had it's "head in the sand" since: Obama to Unveil “Massive” Nationwide Voter Registration Drive (Friday, April 25th, 2008)

Meanwhile, a heads-up RFK Jr alerts on 9/23: Hundreds Of Thousands Of Votes Are Being Stolen RIGHT NOW (RFK Jr-on-Air America)

Because of this:

Pap: “Are the democrats suing to stop this?”

Bobby: “No, the democrats are doing nothing to stop it.... so all of those 12 million people that the democrats have registered: those ballots are going to be just thrown out.”

That might be a "call to arms" -- or it might be better described as defeatist, defamatory agitprop. Or perhaps it is something else. Some people might like to know. Some people might not. Some people might like to discuss facts and issues. Some people might prefer to post ostrich pictures and mutter about "cohort(s)."

If TIA has ever inspired anyone to positive action, well, I'm grateful for that. But I personally don't think that it compensates for the misinformation that he broadcasts, with your help. I think that progressives deserve good information. I do not think that trying to convince them that Democratic leaders are ignoring flat-out evidence of election theft is rational or helpful. If you aren't willing to engage the issues on their merits, well, that's interesting.

[foo_bar]

57. does the ostrich represent imperviousness to peer review?

As Couric said of Palin, “She’s not always responsive when she’s asked questions,”

Question:
if your thoughts were widely read, what do you think the effect of your gloom vs. 99...% tracts would be?"

Answer:
TIA has REPEATED NUMEROUS times in his Election Model posts the following -- info I've highlighted EVERY time so readers couldn't POSSIBLY miss it

Can I buy an independent clause? Okay, "OBAMA NEEDS A MASSIVE VOTER REGISTRATION AND GOTV EFFORT TO OVERCOME THE FRAUD", that's the pinnacle of not despair. Anyway you're kind of in a box, since you can't react histrionically in the third person (without fixing all the personal pronouns), and you can't find the time to respond to Prof. OTOH, but you do find time to spew crap and draw up enemies lists (I PM'd a Hillary supporter on this thread your "DU Trolls and freeps" thread on the site that shan't be linked publicly, since you evidently have no problem including mortal enemies in your confidence game (weird that "papau" ended up on your enemies list considering he was one of your few true bluers)), so you chose the perfect username.

[Stop Cornyn]

47. I wish we had a different and separate forum for Monte Carlo election simulation

[truthisfreedom]

59. Yeah? BUT you're forgetting...

McChicken still has 3 more debates to back out of!