 |
Latest | Greatest | Lobby | Journals | Search | Options | Help | Login |
|
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
|
Wed Oct-15-08 07:14 PM Original message |
| 10/14 Election Model (TIA): Obama 372EV (51.2-44.8%, 74-64m); Elec'n Calculator:(55.7-40.4%, 80-58m) |
|
Edited on Wed Oct-15-08 08:12 PM by tiptoe
2008 ELECTION MODEL A Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation Updated: October 14 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 Projection (60% UVA) 5-Poll Mov Avg Trend Research2k Gallup Hotline/FD Rasmussen Zogby Battleground ABC/WP Newsweek FOX News Ipsos NBC/WSJ CBS/NYT CNN Marist AP/GfK Registered V vs Likely V Poll Averages Date 10/13 10/12 10/12 10/13 10/13 10/12 10/11 10/09 10/09 10/06 10/05 10/05 10/05 09/30 09/30 Size 1100 LV 2700 RV 838 LV 3000 LV 1208 LV 814 LV 766 LV 1035 RV 900 RV 858 RV 658 RV 616 LV 694 LV 943 LV 808 LV RV avg LV avg Total 2-party MoE 2.95% 1.89% 3.39% 1.79% 2.82% 3.43% 3.54% 3.05% 3.27% 3.35% 3.82% 3.95% 3.72% 3.19% 3.45% Obama 52 51 48 50 49 51 53 52 46 47 49 48 53 49 48 49 50.1 49.7 54.0 McCain 41 41 42 45 43 43 43 41 39 40 43 45 45 44 41 40.8 43.2 42.4 46.0 Other 7 8 10 5 8 6 4 7 15 13 8 7 2 7 11 10.2 6.7 7.9 0.0 Spread 11 10 6 5 6 8 10 11 7 7 6 3 8 5 7 8.2 6.9 7.3 8.0 Obama 50.0 49.8 50.2 51.0 50.2 49.8 49.4 48.4 48.6 49.2 49.4 49.6 49.6 49.0 49.0 McCain 42.4 42.8 43.2 43.0 41.8 41.2 41.2 41.6 42.4 43.4 43.6 43.2 43.2 42.8 42.6 Spread 7.6 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.4 8.6 8.2 6.8 6.2 5.8 5.8 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.4 Win Prob 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.0 97.1 98.5 98.9 98.9 99.0 99.4 98.3 100.0 100.0 Obama 54.6 54.2 54.2 54.6 55.0 55.2 55.0 54.4 54.0 53.6 53.6 53.9 53.9 53.9 54.0 McCain 45.4 45.8 45.8 45.4 45.0 44.8 45.0 45.6 46.0 46.4 46.4 46.1 46.1 46.1 46.0 Spread 9.1 8.5 8.3 9.2 10.0 10.4 10.1 8.8 8.0 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.1 Win Prob 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.1 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 The 2008 Election Model assumes that current polls reflect the will of the electorate and a fraud-free election is held today. Obama has a solid margin in virtually all of the battleground states. Obama won all 5000 Monte Carlo simulation election trials with an expected (average) 367–171 electoral vote margin. His median EV was 371; the mode (most frequent trial result) was 372. He has a 99% probability of winning at least 330 electoral votes. View the State vs. National vote share projection Trend. National polls are current; state poll lag by a week or more. Obama’s projected aggregate state 2-party vote (53.64%) is approaching the national average (54.56%) as the time lag between the polls decreases. The three most critical states weighted by the electoral vote and poll spread are OH (20.9), NC (20.90) and FL (14.3). The values represent the optimal percentage of campaign resources to be allocated to these states. The percentages change when the polls are updated. For McCain to win, he needs to switch at least 8% (1 in 12) of Obama’s votes to his column. National Model Tracking Poll Average Projected Vote (2-party) Actual Projected State Model Aggregate Poll Share Projected Vote (2-party) Actual Projected Electoral Vote Poll Projected Expected value Obama 50.00 54.56 52.16 50.09 53.64 51.24 372 372 367.12 McCain 42.40 45.44 43.84 43.99 46.36 44.76 166 166 170.88 Calculation method (base case) Rasmussen, Gallup, Research 2000, Hotline, Zogby Poll average+ 60% of undecided (UVA) to Obama 4% to third parties Weighted average of state polls (2004 recorded vote) Poll aggregate+ 60% of undecided (UVA) to Obama 4% to third parties Unadjusted Poll Leader Poll + 60% undecided (UVA) to Obama EV = ∑ (Projection win probability (i) * EV(i)), i=1,51 states Monte Carlo Simulation (60% UVA to Obama, 5000 election trials) Mean Median Mode Maximum Minimum 367.20 371 372 417 299 170.80 167 166 121 239 Average Expected EV Middle value Most frequent EV Obama Electoral Vote Win Probabilities Minimum Electoral Vote Winning Trials >Min EV Probability (EV > Min) 270 5000 100.0% 310 4996 99.92% 330 4953 99.1% 350 4475 89.5% 370 2546 50.9% 390 179 3.6% 410 5 0.10% Projected Vote Shares, Electoral Votes and Win Probabilities Electoral-vote.com and RealClearPolitics now closely match the Election Model. As indicated in a prior update, these sites assign the full electoral vote to the state poll leader (regardless of the spread); they avoid using state win probabilities in calculating the EV. In the past, their EV totals were low and volatile compared to the Election Model; the polls were close and they did not allocate undecided voters. Now that Obama has pulled ahead in every battleground state, the Election Model undecided voter “kick” has virtually no impact on his expected EV; he is already projected to win. The discrepancy in win probabilities between the Election Model (100%) and FiveThirtyEight (90%) is due to fundamental differences in methodology. The 538 model adjusts state poll projections based on pollster rating weights as well as other factors. They forecast Election Day result. The Election Model assumes the election is held today and is fraud-free. The Election Model does not rank pollsters, but it does adjust the latest state poll average for a range of undecided voter allocations (40–80%) — a sensitivity “what-if” analysis. Ranking pollsters based on prior election results is a two-edged sword. If a pollster (Rasmussen) comes close to the recorded vote in a rigged election, does that mean he was more accurate than one who correctly projected the True Vote (Zogby)? Compare their performance in the 2000 election (Zogby was correct, Rasmussen was way off) to the totally corrupt 2004 election (Rasmussen was “correct” and Zogby was off). This was the electoral-vote.com EV map on Nov 1, 2004. Compare the FiveThirtyEight Electoral Vote Distribution chart to the Election Model Electoral Vote Simulation Frequency chart. The Election Calculator Model In May, the 2008 Election Calculator projected that Obama would win the True Vote by 71–59m. May 2008 Estimated vote share 2004 DNV Kerry Bush Other Total Turnout — 95% 95% 95% 113.7 Voted 17.2 60.5 51.6 1.6 130.9 Mix 13.1% 46.2% 39.4% 1.2% 100.0% 130.9m Obama 59% 89% 11% 70% 54.1% 70.8m McCain 40% 10% 88% 11% 44.7% 58.5m Other 1% 1% 1% 19% 1.2% 1.6m 1) An increase of over 20% in new registered voters, the great majority of whom are Democratic. 2) A slight increase in the estimated Obama share of returning Kerry and Bush voters. 3) An increase in third party vote share. Obama is now projected to win by 80–58 million votes in a fraud-free landslide. 2004 DNV Kerry Bush Other Total Turnout — 95% 95% 95% 113.7 Votes 29.9 60.6 51.6 1.6 143.7 Mix 20.8% 42.2% 35.9% 1.1% 100.0% 143.7m Obama 59% 92% 11% 64% 55.7% 80.1m McCain 35% 5% 86% 11% 40.4% 58.1m Other 6% 3% 3% 25% 3.9% 5.6m If Obama wins just 9% of returning Bush voters and 90% of Kerry voters, he would win by 17.5m votes (54.2–41.6%). If he wins just 55% of new voters and 90% of Kerry voters, he would win by 17.2m votes (54–42%). If he wins by 52–44%, he would win by 74.7–63.4m. If he wins by 50–46%, he would win by 71.8–66.2m. The 1988-2004 Election Calculator was developed as a response to the Final 2004 National Exit Poll. The Final was forced to match the recorded vote using impossible weightings. In the Final, 43% of 2004 voters (52.6m) were former Bush 2000 voters; 37% were Gore voters. But Bush only had 50.5m votes in 2000. Approximately 2.5m died and another 2.5m did not return to vote. Therefore, only 45.5m Bush 2000 voters could have returned to vote in 2004. The Final overstated the Bush vote by 7 million in order to match a corrupt miscounted vote. The 2004 True Vote calculation was based on an estimated 100.1m returning 2000 voters, calculated as: Total votes cast in 2000 (110.8m) less voter mortality (5.4m) times 95% turnout (100.1m). Vote shares were based on the 12:22am National Exit Poll. The model determined that Kerry won by 66.9–57.1 million. Kerry did slightly better (53.2%) than the unadjusted state exit poll (52.0%) aggregate. The results indicate that 5.4m votes (8.0% of Kerry’s total) were switched from Kerry to Bush. 2004 DNV Kerry Bush Other Total Cast Turnout — 95% 95% 95% 100.1 Votes 25.6 49.7 46.6 3.8 125.7 Mix 20.4% 39.5% 37.1% 3.0% 100.0% 125.7m Kerry 57% 91% 10% 64% 53.2% 66.9m Bush 41% 8% 90% 17% 45.4% 57.1 Other 2% 1% 0% 19% 1.4% 1.7m Recorded Vote share Recorded Vote Unadjusted Exit Poll Deviation from True Vote 122.3 48.3% 59.0 52.0% 1.2% 50.7% 62.0 47.0% +1.6% 1.0% 1.2 1.0% -0.4%
2008 POLLING ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS National Model — see atop State Model (2-party vote shares)
Polling data source: Electoral-vote.com RealClearPolitics.com Election Model Calculations The projected vote share is equal to the latest poll plus the undecided voter allocation. V(i) = Poll(i) + UVA(i) The probability P(i) of winning state (i) is based on the projected state vote share V(i). It is calculated using the Excel Normal distribution function, assuming a 4.0% MoE for a typical 600-sample poll: P(i) = NORMDIST ( V(i), 0.5, .04/1.96, true ) The expected state electoral vote is the product of the win probability and electoral vote. The total expected EV is given by the summation formula: EV = Σ P(i) * EV(i), where i = 1,51 The Electoral Vote Win probability is based on a 5000 election-trial Monte Carlo Simulation. The EV win probability is the number of winning election trials/5000. Why Election Model Projections Differ from the Media, Academia and the Bloggers There are a variety of election forecasting models used in academia, the media and internet election sites. The corporate MSM (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, etc.) sponsors national polls to track the “horserace” and state polls to calculate the electoral vote. • The EM uses Monte Carlo (MC) simulation method to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. Monte Carlo is widely used to analyze diverse risk-based models, when an analytical solution is impractical or impossible. The EM is updated weekly based on the latest state and national polls. The model projects the popular and electoral vote, assuming both clean and fraudulent election scenarios. The EM allocates the electoral vote based on the state win probability in calculating a more realistic total Expected EV. • Corporate MSM pollsters and media pundits use state and national polling data. Electoral vote projections are misleading, since they are calculated based on the latest state polls regardless of the spread; the state poll leader gets all of its electoral votes. This is statistically incorrect; they do not consider state win probabilities. And there is no adjustment for the allocation of undecided voters. For example, assume that McCain leads by 51.0–49.0% in each of five states with a total of 100 electoral votes. Most models would assign the 100 EV to McCain. But Obama could easily win one or more of the states, since his win probability is 31%. The 2008 Election Model would allocate 31% of 100 EV to Obama and 69% of 100 EV to McCain. (more re '...Academia and the Bloggers') Fixing the polls: Party ID, Voted in 2000, RV vs. LV Most national and state polls are sponsored by the corporate MSM. Gallup, Rasmussen and other national polls recently increased the Republican Party ID percentage weighting. This had the immediate effect of boosting McCain’s poll numbers. But there are 11 million more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. USA Today/Gallup changed the poll method from RV to LV right after the Republican convention. Party-ID weights were manipulated to favor McCain as well. (more on 'Fixing the Polls...') The Great Election Fraud Lockdown: Uncounted, Stuffed and Switched Votes Professional statistical organizations, media pundits and election forecasters who projected a Bush victory never discuss Election Fraud. On the contrary, a complicit media has been in a permanent election fraud lockdown, as it relentlessly promotes the fictional propaganda that Bush won BOTH elections. They want you to believe that Democrats always do better in the exit polls, because Republican voters are reluctant responders. But they never consider other, more plausible explanations — such as uncounted votes and stuffed ballots. Millions of mostly Democratic ballots are uncounted, spoiled and stuffed in every election and favored a Bush I and II in 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004. That's why the Democratic True vote (and exit poll share) is always greater than the Recorded vote. Read more here. • In most states, total votes cast exceeded votes recorded (uncounted ballots exceeded stuffed). In Florida, Ohio and 10 other states, total votes recorded exceeded votes cast (ballot stuffing exceeded uncounted ballots). • The majority (70-80%) of uncounted ballots are in Democratic minority precincts. According to the 2000 Vote Census, 5.4 million of 110.8m total votes cast (4.9%) were uncounted (approximately 4.0m were Gore votes). • In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 62–59m with 286 EV. But 3.4m of 125.7 million total votes cast were uncounted (2.7%) and 2.5m were for Kerry. If they were counted, the recorded Bush 3.0m margin is cut in half, 62.9 - 61.5m. And that's before vote rigging. (more) Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote and Win Probability (See here) 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 [link:tinyurl.com/6afes9|2000-2004 County Vote Database |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| tiptoe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-16-08 02:11 AM Response to Original message |
| 1. 372 EV == new projected high....based on polls BEFORE the debate! n/t |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-16-08 02:33 AM by tiptoe
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| tiptoe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-16-08 07:50 AM Response to Original message |
| 2. "Undecideds Laughing At, Not With, McCain" -- Half...thought Obama “won” the debate, 24% McCain, ... |
|
Undecideds Laughing At, Not With, McCain -- Amy Sullivan, Time
In politics it is generally not considered a good sign when voters are laughing at you, not with you. And by the end of the third and last presidential debate, the undecided voters who had gathered in Denver for Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg’s focus group were “audibly snickering” at John McCain’s grimaces, eye-bulging, and repeated references to “Joe the Plumber.” The group of 50 uncommitted voters should have at least been receptive to McCain—Republicans and Independents outnumbered Democrats in the group by almost 4 to 1, and they started the evening with much warmer responses to McCain than to his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama. But by the time it was all over, so few of them had declared their support for McCain that there weren’t enough for Greenberg to separate them into a post-debate focus group. Meanwhile, the Obama supporters had to assemble in two different rooms to keep their discussion groups manageable. Half of the voters thought that Obama “won” the debate, with 24% giving McCain the victory and 26% seeing no clear winner. As with previous debates, however, the divergent personal reactions to the candidates were most striking. And those ultimately may end up defining the campaign for McCain. He emerged from the Republican field as the candidate who was least associated with the damaged GOP brand, the one least able to be tied to George W. Bush, and he has largely maintained that image: a large plurality (40%) see McCain as a maverick, and over the course of the evening there was a 52-point shift on the question of whether McCain offered a different path than Bush. Yet if McCain has proved resistant to the Obama campaign’s mantra that he would be “More of the Same,” the results of focus groups over the past month seem to show that he has hurt his own chances of winning the White House by misreading the emotional mood of the country. Once again, the focus group dials dove whenever McCain went on the attack, particularly when he talked about Bill Ayers and ACORN in what turned out to be the longest segment of the evening. The audience that started out giving McCain a 54/24 favorability rating (and, incidentally, liked Sarah Palin a lot more than Joe Biden, with +6 and -20 splits) ended up almost evenly divided between warm and cool feelings toward him (50/48). ... TIA's "base case" scenario allocates 60% of Undecideds to Obama. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| tiptoe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-16-08 10:12 PM Response to Original message |
| 3. k! |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| lessthanjake
(436 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-16-08 10:19 PM Response to Original message |
| 4. Why does this model give Obama 60% of undecideds? |
|
Undecided voters who decide in the voting booth or directly beforehand tend to vote for what is seen as the "safer" choice, which, unfortunately given Obama's inexperience compared to McCain, would probably result in McCain winning more undecideds than Obama. What is the reasoning for giving Obama 60%?
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-16-08 10:20 PM Response to Original message |
| 5. Do you think TIA will be a little disappointed when Obama sweeps to victory? |
|
I mean, what else will he have to complain about?
Won't it kind of ruin his gig? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| tiptoe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-17-08 09:24 PM Response to Original message |
| 6. 10/17 Update (PDF) |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Tue May 07th 2024, 08:58 AM 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
