My Open Letter to Nate Silver of the NY Times
Richard Charnin
Silver's NY Times blog piece. Nate sees nothing nefarious in the
Wisconsin election. As usual, Nate parrots the party line: no fraud.
This is a summary of my posts in which I attempt to engage Nate in
discussion - to no avail.
An Open Letter to Nate Silver
Go here for the full text and detailed tables:
http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
This was a comment I posted on Nate's NY Times blog which was
summarily deleted:
http://richardcharnin.com/SilverTimesTruth.htm
I challenge his knowledge here:
http://richardcharnin.com/TwentySilver.htm
I expose his naivete on exit polls here:
http://richardcharnin.com/SilverExitPolls.htm
I expose his bogus ranking system here:
http://richardcharnin.com/SilverRankings.htm
I debunk Nate and Markos (Daily Kos) here:
http://richardcharnin.com/Research2000Volatility.htm
__________________________________________________________________________
An Open Letter to Nate Silver
Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Updated: Aug. 2, 2010
Nate, since your recent hiring by the NY Times, the R2K flap and your
exchanges with Zogby, you have been getting lots of publicity from
blogs such as vanity fair and motherjones.com. Your characterization
of Zogby’s expertise (that he is the “world’s worst pollster”) says
more about you then it does about him. Zogby ranked #1 in 1996 and
2000 (yes, Gore won Florida, despite what the NY Times said), and came
close in the 2004 and 2008 elections, yet you fail to give him credit
and rank him dead last. Why? Because you go along with the media-
perpetuated myth that the recorded vote is sacrosanct. In other words,
you discount the fraud factor and fail to distinguish between the True
Vote and the recorded vote.
Below, you will see why Gore won by perhaps three million more than
his recorded 540,000 vote margin; why Kerry won the True Vote by 10
million; why the Democratic Tsunami was denied in the 2006 midterms;
and why Obama won by nearly 22 million votes in 2008, not the 9.5
million recorded.
I hereby challenge you to try and debunk the data, logic and
mathematics used in the True Vote Model. If you cannot do so, then the
underlying premise of your ranking system (that the recorded vote is
an appropriate baseline to measure pollster performance) is invalid.
As an Internet blogger who has been posting pre-election and exit poll
analyses to prove election fraud since 2004, I have occasionally
looked at your postings on fivethirtyeight.com. I will say right here
that unlike the bloggers and mainstream media (MSNBC, the NY Times,
etc.) who extol your forecasting “expertise”, I do not believe you are
quite the polling guru that they claim you are.
I say this as one who has been building quantitative models since 1965
for defense/aerospace manufacturers, Wall Street investment banks and
has consulted for many financial and corporate enterprises. I have
three degrees in Mathematics, including an MS in Applied Mathematics
and an MS in Operations Research.
Your 2008 simulation model win probabilities did not sync with the
projected vote shares. The major flaw in your model was to conflate it
with your pollster rankings, an ill-conceived methodology. The first
rule of model building is KISS (keep it simple stupid). You not only
introduced an extraneous variable into your model, but the rankings
were incorrect – a double whammy. Now, what do I mean by this, you
ask?
You fail to distinguish the True Vote from the Recorded vote by
ignoring vote miscounts. The premise on which your models are based
(that fraud does not exist) is incorrect from the get-go. In your
ranking system, pollsters who come close to the recorded vote (i.e.
Rasmussen in 2004) are ranked high, but pollsters who come close to
the True Vote (i.e. Zogby) are ranked low. The fact that Zogby is
ranked at the bottom is a clear indictment of your approach. Ranking
pollsters based on their performance against the recorded vote is a
waste of time. Fortunately for you, your fans are unaware of the
distinction between the recorded vote and the True Vote. In fact, most
are unaware of the extent in which their votes have been compromised
by fraud. In your models, election fraud is never a factor.
This is the simple, yet fundamental equation that you seem to be
blissfully unaware of: Recorded Vote = True Vote + Fraud.
In every election since 1968, the recorded vote has deviated widely
from the True Vote. In the eleven elections, the Republicans won the
recorded vote by 49-45%; the Democrats won the True Vote by the
reverse: 49-45%.
The very conservative 3% exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 66
of 238 state exit polls conducted for the NEP in the five presidential
elections from 1988 to 2004 - and 65 “red-shifted” in favor of the
Republican. Approximately six (0.025*238) should have been exceeded
assuming the elections were fair.
The probability that the margin of error would be exceeded in 65 of
the 238 state exit polls for the Republican is calculated using the
Excel function
= BINOMDIST (65,238,0.025,FALSE) = 1 in
43,729,463,568,632,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
In 2004, Zogby’s final polling in nine battleground states was within
0.5% of the unadjusted exit poll average (after allocating undecided
voters).
Kerry led in 8 states by 50.2-44.8%. The base case assumption was that
he would capture 75% of the undecided (UVA) vote and win all 9 states
by 53.7-45.9%. Assuming a conservative 55% UVA scenario, he would
still win 8 states by 52.7-46.8%. Kerry officially won 4 of the 9
states by 50.1-49.4%. The margin of error was exceeded in 7 states, a
1 in 4.7 billion probability.
------------------------------------------------
In 1996, Zogby was within 0.3% of the recorded vote.
He ranked # 1.
In 2000, Zogby was within 0.1% of the recorded vote.
He ranked #1
But there were 6 million uncounted votes.
Gore won by at least 3 million votes.
The election was stolen.
In 2004, Zogby was within 1.2% of the recorded vote.
His Election Day polling had Kerry by 50-47%.
Kerry’s True Vote was 53.2% - a 10 million margin.
The election was stolen.
In 2006, Zogby ranked #7.
The pre-election Generic Poll Trend Model forecast a 56.4% Democratic
Landslide.
The unadjusted National Exit Poll had 56.4%.
The landslide was denied.
In 2008, Zogby was within 2.2% of the recorded vote.
He ranked # 4.
Obama had a 58% True Vote share and won by 22 million votes.
The landslide was denied.
So why is Zogby at the very bottom of your pollster rankings?
Since you rank pollsters based on how close their polls match the
recorded vote, I assume that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky are ranked
at the top, since their final state and national exit polls always
seem to match the recorded vote. So why don’t they release the
unadjusted exit polls as well? These may actually reflect the True
Vote. As one who purports to be a Quant, you should be interested in
the statistical rationale for matching the final exit polls to a
rigged recorded vote.
Check with your new employer, the Grey Lady. The NY Times is an
important part of the National Exit Pool, the consortium that sponsors
the exit polls. The NEP also includes the Washington Post, ABC, CNN,
AP and Fox News. That’s plenty of MSM polling power. It is the height
of hypocrisy to expect transparency from R2K and not releasing raw,
unadjusted precinct exit poll data from 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008 that
would prove election fraud. That information would be very useful. It
might indicate which exit poll precincts show discrepancies to the
recorded vote that are virtually impossible mathematically.
What are your thoughts about the 2010 primaries in MA, AR, SC and AL?
Does the fact that Coakley won the hand-counts in MA indicate
something to you? Does the fact that 40 AR precincts that favored
Halter were closed down right before the election indicate something?
What about the unknown, non-campaigner Greene winning in SC by 59-41%
but losing the absentees by 84-16%? The DINOS on the state election
commission refused to consider the recommendations of computer
scientists to investigate the voting machines that were obviously
rigged. In AL on June 8, the attorney general issued an opinion that
an automatic recount does not apply in a primary election. Knowing all
this, will you factor fraud into your 2010 projections – along with
estimated turnout and final polling shares?
Do you want further confirmation that Kerry won in a landslide? As an
“expert” analyst, you should have taken a close look at the 2004
National Exit Poll. If you had, you would have seen that the Final
NEP as always, was forced to match the recorded vote by increasing the
2004 percentage mix of returning 2000 voters from 41% at 12:22am
(13047 respondents) to an impossible 43% in the Final (13660) at
1:00am. Bush’s vote shares were also inflated to implausible levels.
According to the Final NEP, 43% (52.6 million) of 2004 voters were
returning Bush 2000 voters. But this was impossible. Bush only had
50.46 million recorded votes. Based on voter mortality tables, 2.5
million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Therefore at
most only 48 million returning Bush voters could have voted in 2004.
But if an estimated 98% turned out, 47 million voted. Therefore, the
number of returning Bush voters was inflated by at least 5 million.
Kerry won the election by 10 million votes. You are welcome to try and
refute the True Vote Model.
Do you want to see a proof that Obama won by nearly 22 million votes
and not by the recorded 9.5 million? As an “expert” analyst, you
should have taken a close look at the 2008 National Exit Poll. If you
had, you would have seen that the Final NEP, as is always the case,
was forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the number of
returning 2004 voters to an impossible level. According to the NEP,
46% (60 million) of 2008 voters were returning Bush 2004 voters and
37% were returning Kerry voters. That means there were 12 million
more returning Bush voters than Kerry voters – and that’s assuming the
myth perpetuated by the mainstream media (who you are now going to
work for) that Bush won by 3 million votes in 2004. Do you believe it?
How could that be?
But it’s much worse than that. If Kerry won by 10 million votes as the
True Vote Model indicates (you are welcome to try and refute it) then
there were approximately 10 million more returning Kerry voters than
Bush voters. Assuming the same NEP vote shares that were used to match
the recorded vote, Obama wins by 22 million votes, not the 9.5 million
recorded.
The 2008 NEP indicated that 4% (5 million) of the electorate consisted
of returning third-party voters. That was clearly impossible; only 1.2
million third-party votes were recorded in 2004. In their zeal to
match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to create millions of
phantom Bush and third-party voters.
In the eleven presidential elections from 1968 to 2008, the
Republicans won the popular vote by 49-45%, (6% went to third
parties). But the Democrats won the True Vote by 49-45%.
It’s all in my book: Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted
Votes, and the National Exit Poll.
As the first analyst to use Monte Carlo simulation in the 2004
Election Model (and the updated 2008 Election Model), I applied
extensive exit poll analysis in developing a post-election True Vote
Model. It proves that not only were the 2000 and 2004 elections
stolen, it is likely that 1968 and 1988 were as well. There were at
least 6 million uncounted votes in 1968, 11 million in 1988, 6 million
in 2000 and 4 million in 2004 – and the clear majority were
Democratic (minority) votes.
The Edison Mitofsky 2004 Evaluation Report provides the exit poll
discrepancies (WPE) of 238 state presidential election exit polls from
1988-2004. Of the 66 that exceeded the 3% margin of error, 65 favored
the Republican. Was it due to reluctant Bush responders and/or
exuberant Democratic responders? No, it was the result of millions of
uncounted votes (mostly Democratic) and millions of phantom Bush
voters.
The Final 2004 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation)
projected Kerry would win a 51.3% share and 337 electoral votes. This
closely matched the unadjusted aggregate state exit polls (52%) and
the 12:22am National Exit Poll (51.2%). The True Vote Model indicated
that Kerry had a 53.2% share. Of course Bush won by a bogus 50.7-48.3%
recorded vote margin. How did your projections pan out?
In the 2006 midterms, the pre-election Trend Model (based on 120
Generic polls) projected a 56.43% share for the Democrats. The
unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a nearly identical 56.37%. The
Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the 52% recorded vote.
Nate, which one do you believe was correct? You are surely aware of
documented miscounts in quite a few congressional elections, virtually
all favoring the GOP (see FL–13, FL-24, OH-1, etc.). How did your
projections pan out?
The Final 2008 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation)
exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2%(53.1%)
of his 52.9% share. But it was wrong. Obama did much better than that.
The final state pre-election likely voter (LV) polls did not fully
capture the late shift to Obama. Had they been registered voter (RV)
polls, adjusted for undecided voters, Obama would have had a 57%
share. He had 57% and 420 EV in the True Vote Model. As shown below,
the final Gallup RV tracking poll gave Obama a 53-40% margin. After
allocating undecided voters, he had 57% - matching the True Vote
Model. How did your projections pan out?
As one versed in statistics, are you aware that the expected electoral
vote is the simple summation:
EV = å Win probability (i) * EV (i), where i=1,51 states?
Do you see why only state win probabilities, based on the latest
polling adjusted for undecided voters, are necessary to calculate the
expected EV?
Do you now see why a simulation or “meta-analysis” is unnecessary
overkill for calculating the expected (“theoretical”) electoral vote?
Do you understand that the only reason for running a Monte Carlo
electoral vote simulation is to determine an EV probability
distribution?
The 2008 Election Model Monte Carlo simulation required only 5000
election trials for the mean EV (365.8) to converge to the theoretical
expected value (365.3) illustrating the Law of Large Numbers. Do you
see why an electoral vote simulation of more than 5000 election trials
is overkill?
So what does it all mean?
It means that any and all polling analysis that fails to consider
voter mortality, uncounted votes and a feasible voter turnout is
doomed to produce the wrong result. The correct result is the True
Vote based on total votes cast. The wrong result is the recorded vote
that ignores uncounted votes but includes phantom voters.
It means that the recorded vote, the basis for your rankings, never
reflects the True Vote!
It exposes your ranking system, which places John Zogby (the only
pollster to predict the True Vote in the last three presidential
elections) at the bottom of a list of scores of obscure pollsters, as
being fatally flawed.
It means that your comments disparaging exit polls, along with your
failure to do post-election True Vote analyses, indicate that you are
in sync with a moribund mainstream media that perpetuates endemic
Election Fraud by withholding raw exit poll data. They accept the
recorded vote as Gospel - just as you do in your rankings. You will
fit in very well at the NY Times.
When will you incorporate the True Vote into your analysis? Why do you
ignore the fact that the mainstream media (i.e. the National Election
Pool, which includes the NY Times) is responsible for the impossible
adjustments (made by the exit pollsters they employ) to the final
2004, 2006, 2008 state and national exit polls? They had to match the
polls to corrupted recorded vote counts, come hell or high water - and
will surely do so again in 2010.
You have questioned the R2K Democratic share of the 18-29 age group
exceeding the 30-44 group in 20 of 20 races.
Table 1 shows the probabilities for all the age groups.
There was a 33% probability that the Dems would do better in the 18-29
group than the 30-44 group in all 20 races given the average two-party
shares. The comparable probabilities were 77% for 45-59 and nearly
100% for 60+.
You have questioned the apparent lack of volatility in the 2008 R2K
tracking polls.
Table 2 displays R2K daily statistics.
The margin of error is 1.96 times the standard deviation (a measure of
volatility) at the 95% confidence level.
The standard deviation of Obama’s daily poll shares was 1.83%. It was
1.59% for the 3-day moving average.
Table 3 is a comparison of Gallup vs. R2K.
Gallup was a registered voter (RV) poll. R2K was a likely voter (LV)
poll.
The average shares and volatilities (standard deviation) closely
match.
There was a strong 0.70 correlation between Obama’s Gallup and R2K
shares.
There was a good 0.50 correlation between McCain’s Gallup and R2K
shares.
Table 4 compares the R2K tracking poll and other polls (including
standard, non-tracking polls)
Projections are based on the allocation of undecided voters (UVA).
1) 75% of the undecided vote is allocated to Obama, the de-facto
challenger.
2) third parties have 1.5% (the actual recorded share).
The final Gallup projection (57.1%) for Obama is a close match to the
True Vote Model (57.5%).
Obama projected shares:
Gallup: 53 + .75 * 5.5 = 53 + 4.13 = 57.1%
R2K: 51 + .75 * 3.5 = 51 + 2.63 = 53.6%
Table 5 is a 2008 Pollster True Vote Ranking Chart (15 polls)
Gallup (RV) ranks #1 with a 57.1% Obama projection (after UVA)
CBS (LV) and ABC/WP (RV) are tied at #2 with a 56.6% share
Zogby is ranked #4 with a 55.1% share.
Pollsters with a GOP bias brought up the rear.
Battleground (LV) is ranked #14 with a 52.4% share
Rasmussen is ranked #15 with a 52.1% share.
Table 6 is a comparison of final RV and LV polls
The average LV poll had Obama winning by 50.3-44.0 before allocating
undecided voters (UVA) and 53.4-45.1 after UVA.
The average RV poll had Obama winning by 53.3-39.5 before UVA and
57.6-40.9 after UVA
Zogby’s LV poll had Obama winning by 54-43 before UVA and 55.1-43.4
after UVA
Consider the final ABC and Gallup RV Polls (total 5293 sample, 1.8%
MoE).
Combined, they had Obama winning by 53.5-40.5 before UVA and 56.9-41.6
after UVA
You rank Zogby dead last, yet his LV poll numbers are right in the
middle of the RV and LV groups. He is closer to ABC and Gallup than
Rasmussen, Hotline and FOX. You have lowered Rasmussen’s ranking but
you still rank him much higher than Zogby. Rasmussen has a strong GOP
bias. Hotline, FOX and Battleground also lean to the GOP.
Do you have any evidence that Zogby’s polls are biased? Do you still
feel justified in ranking Zogby last?
Table 7 displays the post-election True Vote Model.
It closely matches the RV projections and proves that the NEP
returning voter mix is bogus.
The Final 2008 Monte Carlo-based Election Model projected a 53.1%
Obama share.
The 5000 election simulation trials produced a 365.8 mean EV.
Obama had 365.3 expected electoral votes, matching his recorded 365
total.
The Election Model exactly matched the recorded EV and was within 0.2%
of the popular vote.
But it was wrong.
The EM understated Obama’s True Vote by using final state and national
LV polls.
The True Vote model indicates that he had 57-58% and close to 420 EV!
Do you still believe that Obama’s 52.9% recorded share reflects the
True Vote?
Do you still think that Obama had just 365 electoral votes?
Do you see why Likely Voter polls understate the Democratic share when
there is heavy new voter registration and turnout?
Do you see why biased GOP LV Tracking polls brought down the average
Obama projected share?
Do you see why your pollster rankings are arbitrary? They are not
justified statistically in a system of rampant election fraud.
The proof that it is so: the MSM won’t discuss election fraud, much
less interview honest election activists and researchers.
Josh Mitteldorf
extra 14,000 votes is closer to the expected number. But there is no
acknowledgment of the fact that the REASON for the higher turnout is
that Wisconsin is disgusted with Walker and they're showing up in droves
to protest what he's doing. There's no reason to expect a higher
turnout among Prosser supporters.
-Josh Mitteldorf
> of Zogby�s expertise (that he is the �world�s worst pollster�) says
> more about you then it does about him. Zogby ranked #1 in 1996 and
> 2000 (yes, Gore won Florida, despite what the NY Times said), and came
> close in the 2004 and 2008 elections, yet you fail to give him credit
> and rank him dead last. Why? Because you go along with the media-
> perpetuated myth that the recorded vote is sacrosanct. In other words,
> you discount the fraud factor and fail to distinguish between the True
> Vote and the recorded vote.
>
> Below, you will see why Gore won by perhaps three million more than
> his recorded 540,000 vote margin; why Kerry won the True Vote by 10
> million; why the Democratic Tsunami was denied in the 2006 midterms;
> and why Obama won by nearly 22 million votes in 2008, not the 9.5
> million recorded.
>
> I hereby challenge you to try and debunk the data, logic and
> mathematics used in the True Vote Model. If you cannot do so, then the
> underlying premise of your ranking system (that the recorded vote is
> an appropriate baseline to measure pollster performance) is invalid.
>
> As an Internet blogger who has been posting pre-election and exit poll
> analyses to prove election fraud since 2004, I have occasionally
> looked at your postings on fivethirtyeight.com. I will say right here
> that unlike the bloggers and mainstream media (MSNBC, the NY Times,
> etc.) who extol your forecasting �expertise�, I do not believe you are
> quite the polling guru that they claim you are.
>
> I say this as one who has been building quantitative models since 1965
> for defense/aerospace manufacturers, Wall Street investment banks and
> has consulted for many financial and corporate enterprises. I have
> three degrees in Mathematics, including an MS in Applied Mathematics
> and an MS in Operations Research.
>
> Your 2008 simulation model win probabilities did not sync with the
> projected vote shares. The major flaw in your model was to conflate it
> with your pollster rankings, an ill-conceived methodology. The first
> rule of model building is KISS (keep it simple stupid). You not only
> introduced an extraneous variable into your model, but the rankings
> were incorrect � a double whammy. Now, what do I mean by this, you
> ask?
>
> You fail to distinguish the True Vote from the Recorded vote by
> ignoring vote miscounts. The premise on which your models are based
> (that fraud does not exist) is incorrect from the get-go. In your
> ranking system, pollsters who come close to the recorded vote (i.e.
> Rasmussen in 2004) are ranked high, but pollsters who come close to
> the True Vote (i.e. Zogby) are ranked low. The fact that Zogby is
> ranked at the bottom is a clear indictment of your approach. Ranking
> pollsters based on their performance against the recorded vote is a
> waste of time. Fortunately for you, your fans are unaware of the
> distinction between the recorded vote and the True Vote. In fact, most
> are unaware of the extent in which their votes have been compromised
> by fraud. In your models, election fraud is never a factor.
>
> This is the simple, yet fundamental equation that you seem to be
> blissfully unaware of: Recorded Vote = True Vote + Fraud.
>
> In every election since 1968, the recorded vote has deviated widely
> from the True Vote. In the eleven elections, the Republicans won the
> recorded vote by 49-45%; the Democrats won the True Vote by the
> reverse: 49-45%.
>
> The very conservative 3% exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 66
> of 238 state exit polls conducted for the NEP in the five presidential
> elections from 1988 to 2004 - and 65 �red-shifted� in favor of the
> Republican. Approximately six (0.025*238) should have been exceeded
> assuming the elections were fair.
>
> The probability that the margin of error would be exceeded in 65 of
> the 238 state exit polls for the Republican is calculated using the
> Excel function
> = BINOMDIST (65,238,0.025,FALSE) = 1 in
> 43,729,463,568,632,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
>
>
> In 2004, Zogby�s final polling in nine battleground states was within
> 0.5% of the unadjusted exit poll average (after allocating undecided
> voters).
>
> Kerry led in 8 states by 50.2-44.8%. The base case assumption was that
> he would capture 75% of the undecided (UVA) vote and win all 9 states
> by 53.7-45.9%. Assuming a conservative 55% UVA scenario, he would
> still win 8 states by 52.7-46.8%. Kerry officially won 4 of the 9
> states by 50.1-49.4%. The margin of error was exceeded in 7 states, a
> 1 in 4.7 billion probability.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> In 1996, Zogby was within 0.3% of the recorded vote.
> He ranked # 1.
>
> In 2000, Zogby was within 0.1% of the recorded vote.
> He ranked #1
> But there were 6 million uncounted votes.
> Gore won by at least 3 million votes.
> The election was stolen.
>
> In 2004, Zogby was within 1.2% of the recorded vote.
> His Election Day polling had Kerry by 50-47%.
> Kerry�s True Vote was 53.2% - a 10 million margin.
> The election was stolen.
>
> In 2006, Zogby ranked #7.
> The pre-election Generic Poll Trend Model forecast a 56.4% Democratic
> Landslide.
> The unadjusted National Exit Poll had 56.4%.
> The landslide was denied.
>
> In 2008, Zogby was within 2.2% of the recorded vote.
> He ranked # 4.
> Obama had a 58% True Vote share and won by 22 million votes.
> The landslide was denied.
>
> So why is Zogby at the very bottom of your pollster rankings?
>
> Since you rank pollsters based on how close their polls match the
> recorded vote, I assume that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky are ranked
> at the top, since their final state and national exit polls always
> seem to match the recorded vote. So why don�t they release the
> unadjusted exit polls as well? These may actually reflect the True
> Vote. As one who purports to be a Quant, you should be interested in
> the statistical rationale for matching the final exit polls to a
> rigged recorded vote.
>
> Check with your new employer, the Grey Lady. The NY Times is an
> important part of the National Exit Pool, the consortium that sponsors
> the exit polls. The NEP also includes the Washington Post, ABC, CNN,
> AP and Fox News. That�s plenty of MSM polling power. It is the height
> of hypocrisy to expect transparency from R2K and not releasing raw,
> unadjusted precinct exit poll data from 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008 that
> would prove election fraud. That information would be very useful. It
> might indicate which exit poll precincts show discrepancies to the
> recorded vote that are virtually impossible mathematically.
>
> What are your thoughts about the 2010 primaries in MA, AR, SC and AL?
> Does the fact that Coakley won the hand-counts in MA indicate
> something to you? Does the fact that 40 AR precincts that favored
> Halter were closed down right before the election indicate something?
> What about the unknown, non-campaigner Greene winning in SC by 59-41%
> but losing the absentees by 84-16%? The DINOS on the state election
> commission refused to consider the recommendations of computer
> scientists to investigate the voting machines that were obviously
> rigged. In AL on June 8, the attorney general issued an opinion that
> an automatic recount does not apply in a primary election. Knowing all
> this, will you factor fraud into your 2010 projections � along with
> estimated turnout and final polling shares?
>
> Do you want further confirmation that Kerry won in a landslide? As an
> �expert� analyst, you should have taken a close look at the 2004
> National Exit Poll. If you had, you would have seen that the Final
> NEP as always, was forced to match the recorded vote by increasing the
> 2004 percentage mix of returning 2000 voters from 41% at 12:22am
> (13047 respondents) to an impossible 43% in the Final (13660) at
> 1:00am. Bush�s vote shares were also inflated to implausible levels.
>
> According to the Final NEP, 43% (52.6 million) of 2004 voters were
> returning Bush 2000 voters. But this was impossible. Bush only had
> 50.46 million recorded votes. Based on voter mortality tables, 2.5
> million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Therefore at
> most only 48 million returning Bush voters could have voted in 2004.
> But if an estimated 98% turned out, 47 million voted. Therefore, the
> number of returning Bush voters was inflated by at least 5 million.
> Kerry won the election by 10 million votes. You are welcome to try and
> refute the True Vote Model.
>
> Do you want to see a proof that Obama won by nearly 22 million votes
> and not by the recorded 9.5 million? As an �expert� analyst, you
> should have taken a close look at the 2008 National Exit Poll. If you
> had, you would have seen that the Final NEP, as is always the case,
> was forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the number of
> returning 2004 voters to an impossible level. According to the NEP,
> 46% (60 million) of 2008 voters were returning Bush 2004 voters and
> 37% were returning Kerry voters. That means there were 12 million
> more returning Bush voters than Kerry voters � and that�s assuming the
> myth perpetuated by the mainstream media (who you are now going to
> work for) that Bush won by 3 million votes in 2004. Do you believe it?
> How could that be?
>
> But it�s much worse than that. If Kerry won by 10 million votes as the
> True Vote Model indicates (you are welcome to try and refute it) then
> there were approximately 10 million more returning Kerry voters than
> Bush voters. Assuming the same NEP vote shares that were used to match
> the recorded vote, Obama wins by 22 million votes, not the 9.5 million
> recorded.
>
> The 2008 NEP indicated that 4% (5 million) of the electorate consisted
> of returning third-party voters. That was clearly impossible; only 1.2
> million third-party votes were recorded in 2004. In their zeal to
> match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to create millions of
> phantom Bush and third-party voters.
>
> In the eleven presidential elections from 1968 to 2008, the
> Republicans won the popular vote by 49-45%, (6% went to third
> parties). But the Democrats won the True Vote by 49-45%.
>
> It�s all in my book: Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted
> Votes, and the National Exit Poll.
>
> As the first analyst to use Monte Carlo simulation in the 2004
> Election Model (and the updated 2008 Election Model), I applied
> extensive exit poll analysis in developing a post-election True Vote
> Model. It proves that not only were the 2000 and 2004 elections
> stolen, it is likely that 1968 and 1988 were as well. There were at
> least 6 million uncounted votes in 1968, 11 million in 1988, 6 million
> in 2000 and 4 million in 2004 � and the clear majority were
> Democratic (minority) votes.
>
> The Edison Mitofsky 2004 Evaluation Report provides the exit poll
> discrepancies (WPE) of 238 state presidential election exit polls from
> 1988-2004. Of the 66 that exceeded the 3% margin of error, 65 favored
> the Republican. Was it due to reluctant Bush responders and/or
> exuberant Democratic responders? No, it was the result of millions of
> uncounted votes (mostly Democratic) and millions of phantom Bush
> voters.
>
> The Final 2004 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation)
> projected Kerry would win a 51.3% share and 337 electoral votes. This
> closely matched the unadjusted aggregate state exit polls (52%) and
> the 12:22am National Exit Poll (51.2%). The True Vote Model indicated
> that Kerry had a 53.2% share. Of course Bush won by a bogus 50.7-48.3%
> recorded vote margin. How did your projections pan out?
>
> In the 2006 midterms, the pre-election Trend Model (based on 120
> Generic polls) projected a 56.43% share for the Democrats. The
> unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a nearly identical 56.37%. The
> Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the 52% recorded vote.
> Nate, which one do you believe was correct? You are surely aware of
> documented miscounts in quite a few congressional elections, virtually
> all favoring the GOP (see FL�13, FL-24, OH-1, etc.). How did your
> projections pan out?
>
> The Final 2008 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation)
> exactly matched Obama�s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2%(53.1%)
> of his 52.9% share. But it was wrong. Obama did much better than that.
>
> The final state pre-election likely voter (LV) polls did not fully
> capture the late shift to Obama. Had they been registered voter (RV)
> polls, adjusted for undecided voters, Obama would have had a 57%
> share. He had 57% and 420 EV in the True Vote Model. As shown below,
> the final Gallup RV tracking poll gave Obama a 53-40% margin. After
> allocating undecided voters, he had 57% - matching the True Vote
> Model. How did your projections pan out?
>
> As one versed in statistics, are you aware that the expected electoral
> vote is the simple summation:
> EV = � Win probability (i) * EV (i), where i=1,51 states?
>
> Do you see why only state win probabilities, based on the latest
> polling adjusted for undecided voters, are necessary to calculate the
> expected EV?
> Do you now see why a simulation or �meta-analysis� is unnecessary
> overkill for calculating the expected (�theoretical�) electoral vote?
> The standard deviation of Obama�s daily poll shares was 1.83%. It was
> 1.59% for the 3-day moving average.
>
> Table 3 is a comparison of Gallup vs. R2K.
> Gallup was a registered voter (RV) poll. R2K was a likely voter (LV)
> poll.
> The average shares and volatilities (standard deviation) closely
> match.
> There was a strong 0.70 correlation between Obama�s Gallup and R2K
> shares.
> There was a good 0.50 correlation between McCain�s Gallup and R2K
> shares.
>
> Table 4 compares the R2K tracking poll and other polls (including
> standard, non-tracking polls)
> Projections are based on the allocation of undecided voters (UVA).
> 1) 75% of the undecided vote is allocated to Obama, the de-facto
> challenger.
> 2) third parties have 1.5% (the actual recorded share).
>
> The final Gallup projection (57.1%) for Obama is a close match to the
> True Vote Model (57.5%).
> Obama projected shares:
> Gallup: 53 + .75 * 5.5 = 53 + 4.13 = 57.1%
> R2K: 51 + .75 * 3.5 = 51 + 2.63 = 53.6%
>
> Table 5 is a 2008 Pollster True Vote Ranking Chart (15 polls)
> Gallup (RV) ranks #1 with a 57.1% Obama projection (after UVA)
> CBS (LV) and ABC/WP (RV) are tied at #2 with a 56.6% share
>
> Zogby is ranked #4 with a 55.1% share.
>
> Pollsters with a GOP bias brought up the rear.
> Battleground (LV) is ranked #14 with a 52.4% share
> Rasmussen is ranked #15 with a 52.1% share.
>
> Table 6 is a comparison of final RV and LV polls
> The average LV poll had Obama winning by 50.3-44.0 before allocating
> undecided voters (UVA) and 53.4-45.1 after UVA.
> The average RV poll had Obama winning by 53.3-39.5 before UVA and
> 57.6-40.9 after UVA
> Zogby�s LV poll had Obama winning by 54-43 before UVA and 55.1-43.4
> after UVA
>
> Consider the final ABC and Gallup RV Polls (total 5293 sample, 1.8%
> MoE).
> Combined, they had Obama winning by 53.5-40.5 before UVA and 56.9-41.6
> after UVA
>
> You rank Zogby dead last, yet his LV poll numbers are right in the
> middle of the RV and LV groups. He is closer to ABC and Gallup than
> Rasmussen, Hotline and FOX. You have lowered Rasmussen�s ranking but
> you still rank him much higher than Zogby. Rasmussen has a strong GOP
> bias. Hotline, FOX and Battleground also lean to the GOP.
>
> Do you have any evidence that Zogby�s polls are biased? Do you still
> feel justified in ranking Zogby last?
>
> Table 7 displays the post-election True Vote Model.
> It closely matches the RV projections and proves that the NEP
> returning voter mix is bogus.
>
> The Final 2008 Monte Carlo-based Election Model projected a 53.1%
> Obama share.
> The 5000 election simulation trials produced a 365.8 mean EV.
>
> Obama had 365.3 expected electoral votes, matching his recorded 365
> total.
> The Election Model exactly matched the recorded EV and was within 0.2%
> of the popular vote.
> But it was wrong.
>
> The EM understated Obama�s True Vote by using final state and national
> LV polls.
> The True Vote model indicates that he had 57-58% and close to 420 EV!
>
> Do you still believe that Obama�s 52.9% recorded share reflects the
> True Vote?
> Do you still think that Obama had just 365 electoral votes?
>
> Do you see why Likely Voter polls understate the Democratic share when
> there is heavy new voter registration and turnout?
> Do you see why biased GOP LV Tracking polls brought down the average
> Obama projected share?
>
> Do you see why your pollster rankings are arbitrary? They are not
> justified statistically in a system of rampant election fraud.
> The proof that it is so: the MSM won�t discuss election fraud, much
Paul Lehto
nefarious" in election results is that it is so difficult to see
anything whatsoever. Remember, even before computerized secret vote
counting came along in force there was the expression regarding
elections of "reading the political tea leaves". The meaning of that
included interpreting election results, though was not limited
strictly to that application.
When someone like Nate Silver "sees nothing nefarious", we can presume
for the sake of argument at least that he is not in even the slightest
sense an apologist. Instead, let's say he's reading the political tea
leaves, and the very thin reed, or the tiny ledge upon which he grasps
(that turnout numbers match up better with the extra votes reported,
for example) is just what passes for "analysis" in this field of
political "science," so long as it's dressed up in some more rhetoric
and anecdotal stories.
Remember it is secret black box voting boxes we are talking about.
Data is extremely hard to come up, except for the conclusory election
results numbers that pop out of the black boxes -- sometimes a couple
days late from especially partisan clerks. But even assuming the above
good faith on Silver's part, he "sees nothing nefarious" because he
can see so very little (much like the rest of us) because of the very
nature of the voting system.
What is decisive in terms of where people come down on this issue is
their underlying attitude toward things they can't see or investigate.
If it is one of trust, they will find some small ledge of data to
support the entire election because it is really trust they operate
on. If it, instead, is an underlying attitude of accountability, then
circumstances like Waukesha are concerning at least and a smoking gun
in the worst case.
I say, and I think I can say "we" say, that accountability of
elections is paramount, and that secrecy in the process defeats that
accountability. But who can rationally be in favor of unaccountable
government or unaccountable elections? As secrecy breeds corruption,
a person is rightly alarmed upon seemingly small red flags (in the
eyes of others).
On the other hand, those who implicitly advocate "trust and
confidence" in elections have put the cart before the horse: trust
and confidence is a state of mind that should only be earned and must
be re-earned with each election, and only after investigation reveals
that all necessary checks and balances were in place in a properly
designed voting system and that the checks and balances, including
transparent observability and others, worked as they were intended to
work. At that point, post-election, we can have confidence that the
election result is, indeed, the voice of the people.
But we can't have confidence right now just a few days after an
election when we are missing so much information from Wisconsin, and
much of what we do know stinks or is suggestive of mistakes and fraud.
But Nate Silver simply, and erroneously, takes an entirely different
approach that ignores accountability and instead looks for a silver
lining of the "numbers jibing" and the like upon which to attach his
presumed and pre-existing trust and confidence. That's why he's
wrong, even though he thinks he's right.
Or, he's a knowing apologist of some sort. (Personally, since
subjective motivations are so hard to prove, I think it's far better
to avoid issues of subjective intent wherever possible)
Paul Lehto, JD
>> of Zogby’s expertise (that he is the “world’s worst pollster”) says
>> more about you then it does about him. Zogby ranked #1 in 1996 and
>> 2000 (yes, Gore won Florida, despite what the NY Times said), and came
>> close in the 2004 and 2008 elections, yet you fail to give him credit
>> and rank him dead last. Why? Because you go along with the media-
>> perpetuated myth that the recorded vote is sacrosanct. In other words,
>> you discount the fraud factor and fail to distinguish between the True
>> Vote and the recorded vote.
>>
>> Below, you will see why Gore won by perhaps three million more than
>> his recorded 540,000 vote margin; why Kerry won the True Vote by 10
>> million; why the Democratic Tsunami was denied in the 2006 midterms;
>> and why Obama won by nearly 22 million votes in 2008, not the 9.5
>> million recorded.
>>
>> I hereby challenge you to try and debunk the data, logic and
>> mathematics used in the True Vote Model. If you cannot do so, then the
>> underlying premise of your ranking system (that the recorded vote is
>> an appropriate baseline to measure pollster performance) is invalid.
>>
>> As an Internet blogger who has been posting pre-election and exit poll
>> analyses to prove election fraud since 2004, I have occasionally
>> looked at your postings on fivethirtyeight.com. I will say right here
>> that unlike the bloggers and mainstream media (MSNBC, the NY Times,
>> etc.) who extol your forecasting “expertise”, I do not believe you are
>> quite the polling guru that they claim you are.
>>
>> I say this as one who has been building quantitative models since 1965
>> for defense/aerospace manufacturers, Wall Street investment banks and
>> has consulted for many financial and corporate enterprises. I have
>> three degrees in Mathematics, including an MS in Applied Mathematics
>> and an MS in Operations Research.
>>
>> Your 2008 simulation model win probabilities did not sync with the
>> projected vote shares. The major flaw in your model was to conflate it
>> with your pollster rankings, an ill-conceived methodology. The first
>> rule of model building is KISS (keep it simple stupid). You not only
>> introduced an extraneous variable into your model, but the rankings
>> were incorrect – a double whammy. Now, what do I mean by this, you
>> ask?
>>
>> You fail to distinguish the True Vote from the Recorded vote by
>> ignoring vote miscounts. The premise on which your models are based
>> (that fraud does not exist) is incorrect from the get-go. In your
>> ranking system, pollsters who come close to the recorded vote (i.e.
>> Rasmussen in 2004) are ranked high, but pollsters who come close to
>> the True Vote (i.e. Zogby) are ranked low. The fact that Zogby is
>> ranked at the bottom is a clear indictment of your approach. Ranking
>> pollsters based on their performance against the recorded vote is a
>> waste of time. Fortunately for you, your fans are unaware of the
>> distinction between the recorded vote and the True Vote. In fact, most
>> are unaware of the extent in which their votes have been compromised
>> by fraud. In your models, election fraud is never a factor.
>>
>> This is the simple, yet fundamental equation that you seem to be
>> blissfully unaware of: Recorded Vote = True Vote + Fraud.
>>
>> In every election since 1968, the recorded vote has deviated widely
>> from the True Vote. In the eleven elections, the Republicans won the
>> recorded vote by 49-45%; the Democrats won the True Vote by the
>> reverse: 49-45%.
>>
>> The very conservative 3% exit poll margin of error was exceeded in 66
>> of 238 state exit polls conducted for the NEP in the five presidential
>> elections from 1988 to 2004 - and 65 “red-shifted” in favor of the
>> Republican. Approximately six (0.025*238) should have been exceeded
>> assuming the elections were fair.
>>
>> The probability that the margin of error would be exceeded in 65 of
>> the 238 state exit polls for the Republican is calculated using the
>> Excel function
>> = BINOMDIST (65,238,0.025,FALSE) = 1 in
>> 43,729,463,568,632,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!
>>
>>
>> In 2004, Zogby’s final polling in nine battleground states was within
>> 0.5% of the unadjusted exit poll average (after allocating undecided
>> voters).
>>
>> Kerry led in 8 states by 50.2-44.8%. The base case assumption was that
>> he would capture 75% of the undecided (UVA) vote and win all 9 states
>> by 53.7-45.9%. Assuming a conservative 55% UVA scenario, he would
>> still win 8 states by 52.7-46.8%. Kerry officially won 4 of the 9
>> states by 50.1-49.4%. The margin of error was exceeded in 7 states, a
>> 1 in 4.7 billion probability.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> In 1996, Zogby was within 0.3% of the recorded vote.
>> He ranked # 1.
>>
>> In 2000, Zogby was within 0.1% of the recorded vote.
>> He ranked #1
>> But there were 6 million uncounted votes.
>> Gore won by at least 3 million votes.
>> The election was stolen.
>>
>> In 2004, Zogby was within 1.2% of the recorded vote.
>> His Election Day polling had Kerry by 50-47%.
>> Kerry’s True Vote was 53.2% - a 10 million margin.
>> The election was stolen.
>>
>> In 2006, Zogby ranked #7.
>> The pre-election Generic Poll Trend Model forecast a 56.4% Democratic
>> Landslide.
>> The unadjusted National Exit Poll had 56.4%.
>> The landslide was denied.
>>
>> In 2008, Zogby was within 2.2% of the recorded vote.
>> He ranked # 4.
>> Obama had a 58% True Vote share and won by 22 million votes.
>> The landslide was denied.
>>
>> So why is Zogby at the very bottom of your pollster rankings?
>>
>> Since you rank pollsters based on how close their polls match the
>> recorded vote, I assume that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky are ranked
>> at the top, since their final state and national exit polls always
>> seem to match the recorded vote. So why don’t they release the
>> unadjusted exit polls as well? These may actually reflect the True
>> Vote. As one who purports to be a Quant, you should be interested in
>> the statistical rationale for matching the final exit polls to a
>> rigged recorded vote.
>>
>> Check with your new employer, the Grey Lady. The NY Times is an
>> important part of the National Exit Pool, the consortium that sponsors
>> the exit polls. The NEP also includes the Washington Post, ABC, CNN,
>> AP and Fox News. That’s plenty of MSM polling power. It is the height
>> of hypocrisy to expect transparency from R2K and not releasing raw,
>> unadjusted precinct exit poll data from 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008 that
>> would prove election fraud. That information would be very useful. It
>> might indicate which exit poll precincts show discrepancies to the
>> recorded vote that are virtually impossible mathematically.
>>
>> What are your thoughts about the 2010 primaries in MA, AR, SC and AL?
>> Does the fact that Coakley won the hand-counts in MA indicate
>> something to you? Does the fact that 40 AR precincts that favored
>> Halter were closed down right before the election indicate something?
>> What about the unknown, non-campaigner Greene winning in SC by 59-41%
>> but losing the absentees by 84-16%? The DINOS on the state election
>> commission refused to consider the recommendations of computer
>> scientists to investigate the voting machines that were obviously
>> rigged. In AL on June 8, the attorney general issued an opinion that
>> an automatic recount does not apply in a primary election. Knowing all
>> this, will you factor fraud into your 2010 projections – along with
>> estimated turnout and final polling shares?
>>
>> Do you want further confirmation that Kerry won in a landslide? As an
>> “expert” analyst, you should have taken a close look at the 2004
>> National Exit Poll. If you had, you would have seen that the Final
>> NEP as always, was forced to match the recorded vote by increasing the
>> 2004 percentage mix of returning 2000 voters from 41% at 12:22am
>> (13047 respondents) to an impossible 43% in the Final (13660) at
>> 1:00am. Bush’s vote shares were also inflated to implausible levels.
>>
>> According to the Final NEP, 43% (52.6 million) of 2004 voters were
>> returning Bush 2000 voters. But this was impossible. Bush only had
>> 50.46 million recorded votes. Based on voter mortality tables, 2.5
>> million Bush 2000 voters died prior to the 2004 election. Therefore at
>> most only 48 million returning Bush voters could have voted in 2004.
>> But if an estimated 98% turned out, 47 million voted. Therefore, the
>> number of returning Bush voters was inflated by at least 5 million.
>> Kerry won the election by 10 million votes. You are welcome to try and
>> refute the True Vote Model.
>>
>> Do you want to see a proof that Obama won by nearly 22 million votes
>> and not by the recorded 9.5 million? As an “expert” analyst, you
>> should have taken a close look at the 2008 National Exit Poll. If you
>> had, you would have seen that the Final NEP, as is always the case,
>> was forced to match the recorded vote by adjusting the number of
>> returning 2004 voters to an impossible level. According to the NEP,
>> 46% (60 million) of 2008 voters were returning Bush 2004 voters and
>> 37% were returning Kerry voters. That means there were 12 million
>> more returning Bush voters than Kerry voters – and that’s assuming the
>> myth perpetuated by the mainstream media (who you are now going to
>> work for) that Bush won by 3 million votes in 2004. Do you believe it?
>> How could that be?
>>
>> But it’s much worse than that. If Kerry won by 10 million votes as the
>> True Vote Model indicates (you are welcome to try and refute it) then
>> there were approximately 10 million more returning Kerry voters than
>> Bush voters. Assuming the same NEP vote shares that were used to match
>> the recorded vote, Obama wins by 22 million votes, not the 9.5 million
>> recorded.
>>
>> The 2008 NEP indicated that 4% (5 million) of the electorate consisted
>> of returning third-party voters. That was clearly impossible; only 1.2
>> million third-party votes were recorded in 2004. In their zeal to
>> match the recorded vote, the exit pollsters had to create millions of
>> phantom Bush and third-party voters.
>>
>> In the eleven presidential elections from 1968 to 2008, the
>> Republicans won the popular vote by 49-45%, (6% went to third
>> parties). But the Democrats won the True Vote by 49-45%.
>>
>> It’s all in my book: Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted
>> Votes, and the National Exit Poll.
>>
>> As the first analyst to use Monte Carlo simulation in the 2004
>> Election Model (and the updated 2008 Election Model), I applied
>> extensive exit poll analysis in developing a post-election True Vote
>> Model. It proves that not only were the 2000 and 2004 elections
>> stolen, it is likely that 1968 and 1988 were as well. There were at
>> least 6 million uncounted votes in 1968, 11 million in 1988, 6 million
>> in 2000 and 4 million in 2004 – and the clear majority were
>> Democratic (minority) votes.
>>
>> The Edison Mitofsky 2004 Evaluation Report provides the exit poll
>> discrepancies (WPE) of 238 state presidential election exit polls from
>> 1988-2004. Of the 66 that exceeded the 3% margin of error, 65 favored
>> the Republican. Was it due to reluctant Bush responders and/or
>> exuberant Democratic responders? No, it was the result of millions of
>> uncounted votes (mostly Democratic) and millions of phantom Bush
>> voters.
>>
>> The Final 2004 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation)
>> projected Kerry would win a 51.3% share and 337 electoral votes. This
>> closely matched the unadjusted aggregate state exit polls (52%) and
>> the 12:22am National Exit Poll (51.2%). The True Vote Model indicated
>> that Kerry had a 53.2% share. Of course Bush won by a bogus 50.7-48.3%
>> recorded vote margin. How did your projections pan out?
>>
>> In the 2006 midterms, the pre-election Trend Model (based on 120
>> Generic polls) projected a 56.43% share for the Democrats. The
>> unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated a nearly identical 56.37%. The
>> Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the 52% recorded vote.
>> Nate, which one do you believe was correct? You are surely aware of
>> documented miscounts in quite a few congressional elections, virtually
>> all favoring the GOP (see FL–13, FL-24, OH-1, etc.). How did your
>> projections pan out?
>>
>> The Final 2008 Election Model Projection (Monte Carlo simulation)
>> exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2%(53.1%)
>> of his 52.9% share. But it was wrong. Obama did much better than that.
>>
>> The final state pre-election likely voter (LV) polls did not fully
>> capture the late shift to Obama. Had they been registered voter (RV)
>> polls, adjusted for undecided voters, Obama would have had a 57%
>> share. He had 57% and 420 EV in the True Vote Model. As shown below,
>> the final Gallup RV tracking poll gave Obama a 53-40% margin. After
>> allocating undecided voters, he had 57% - matching the True Vote
>> Model. How did your projections pan out?
>>
>> As one versed in statistics, are you aware that the expected electoral
>> vote is the simple summation:
>> EV = å Win probability (i) * EV (i), where i=1,51 states?
>>
>> Do you see why only state win probabilities, based on the latest
>> polling adjusted for undecided voters, are necessary to calculate the
>> expected EV?
>> Do you now see why a simulation or “meta-analysis” is unnecessary
>> overkill for calculating the expected (“theoretical”) electoral vote?
>> The standard deviation of Obama’s daily poll shares was 1.83%. It was
>> 1.59% for the 3-day moving average.
>>
>> Table 3 is a comparison of Gallup vs. R2K.
>> Gallup was a registered voter (RV) poll. R2K was a likely voter (LV)
>> poll.
>> The average shares and volatilities (standard deviation) closely
>> match.
>> There was a strong 0.70 correlation between Obama’s Gallup and R2K
>> shares.
>> There was a good 0.50 correlation between McCain’s Gallup and R2K
>> shares.
>>
>> Table 4 compares the R2K tracking poll and other polls (including
>> standard, non-tracking polls)
>> Projections are based on the allocation of undecided voters (UVA).
>> 1) 75% of the undecided vote is allocated to Obama, the de-facto
>> challenger.
>> 2) third parties have 1.5% (the actual recorded share).
>>
>> The final Gallup projection (57.1%) for Obama is a close match to the
>> True Vote Model (57.5%).
>> Obama projected shares:
>> Gallup: 53 + .75 * 5.5 = 53 + 4.13 = 57.1%
>> R2K: 51 + .75 * 3.5 = 51 + 2.63 = 53.6%
>>
>> Table 5 is a 2008 Pollster True Vote Ranking Chart (15 polls)
>> Gallup (RV) ranks #1 with a 57.1% Obama projection (after UVA)
>> CBS (LV) and ABC/WP (RV) are tied at #2 with a 56.6% share
>>
>> Zogby is ranked #4 with a 55.1% share.
>>
>> Pollsters with a GOP bias brought up the rear.
>> Battleground (LV) is ranked #14 with a 52.4% share
>> Rasmussen is ranked #15 with a 52.1% share.
>>
>> Table 6 is a comparison of final RV and LV polls
>> The average LV poll had Obama winning by 50.3-44.0 before allocating
>> undecided voters (UVA) and 53.4-45.1 after UVA.
>> The average RV poll had Obama winning by 53.3-39.5 before UVA and
>> 57.6-40.9 after UVA
>> Zogby’s LV poll had Obama winning by 54-43 before UVA and 55.1-43.4
>> after UVA
>>
>> Consider the final ABC and Gallup RV Polls (total 5293 sample, 1.8%
>> MoE).
>> Combined, they had Obama winning by 53.5-40.5 before UVA and 56.9-41.6
>> after UVA
>>
>> You rank Zogby dead last, yet his LV poll numbers are right in the
>> middle of the RV and LV groups. He is closer to ABC and Gallup than
>> Rasmussen, Hotline and FOX. You have lowered Rasmussen’s ranking but
>> you still rank him much higher than Zogby. Rasmussen has a strong GOP
>> bias. Hotline, FOX and Battleground also lean to the GOP.
>>
>> Do you have any evidence that Zogby’s polls are biased? Do you still
>> feel justified in ranking Zogby last?
>>
>> Table 7 displays the post-election True Vote Model.
>> It closely matches the RV projections and proves that the NEP
>> returning voter mix is bogus.
>>
>> The Final 2008 Monte Carlo-based Election Model projected a 53.1%
>> Obama share.
>> The 5000 election simulation trials produced a 365.8 mean EV.
>>
>> Obama had 365.3 expected electoral votes, matching his recorded 365
>> total.
>> The Election Model exactly matched the recorded EV and was within 0.2%
>> of the popular vote.
>> But it was wrong.
>>
>> The EM understated Obama’s True Vote by using final state and national
>> LV polls.
>> The True Vote model indicates that he had 57-58% and close to 420 EV!
>>
>> Do you still believe that Obama’s 52.9% recorded share reflects the
>> True Vote?
>> Do you still think that Obama had just 365 electoral votes?
>>
>> Do you see why Likely Voter polls understate the Democratic share when
>> there is heavy new voter registration and turnout?
>> Do you see why biased GOP LV Tracking polls brought down the average
>> Obama projected share?
>>
>> Do you see why your pollster rankings are arbitrary? They are not
>> justified statistically in a system of rampant election fraud.
>> The proof that it is so: the MSM won’t discuss election fraud, much
>> less interview honest election activists and researchers.
>>
>
> --
> To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the
> "Posting Guidelines" page.
>
> Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
>
> If you're not a member and would like to join, go to
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join"
> link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my
> membership" link.
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto...@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
oli6...@aol.com
From: oli6...@aol.com
To: lehto...@gmail.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2011 11:15 am
Subject: Re: [ei] My Open Letter to Nate Silver of the NY Times
Eric LaBolle
From: election...@googlegroups.com [mailto:election...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of oli6...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 8:52 AM
To: Election...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Fwd: [ei] My Open Letter to Nate Silver of the NY Times