11/01 Final 2010 Midterms Forecast: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraud

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

The 2010 House and Senate Forecast Models are based on a comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls.

The LV Model predicts a 234-201 GOP House and a 50-48 Democratic Senate. Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball predicts a 233-202 GOP House and a 49-49 Senate. Electoral-vote.com has a 51-48-1 Democratic Senate and a 217-200 GOP House with 18 ties. But the registered voter (RV) projections tell a different story.

The Democrats lead the weighted average of 18 Senate RV polls by 8.5%. They lead the corresponding LV sub-samples by 0.9%.

The RV projections indicate a 53-45 Democratic Senate.

The GOP leads the latest 30 House Generic LV polls by 6.8%. They lead the latest 19 RV polls by just 0.7%.

The RV projections indicate a 221-214 Republican House.

The Democrats lead in the following Generic Ballot RV polls: Pew, ABC/WaPo, CBS/NYT, McClatchy/Marist, Newsweek, NBC

Both House and Senate models assume an even UVA split of the undecided 10%.

Pre-election (RV) polls interview registered voters. Likely voters are a sub-sample based on the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM). Media pundits and political sites such as realclearpolitics.com focus on LV polls during the final weeks of every election cycle while RV polls are phased out a month before the election.

Pollsters claim that LV polls are good predictors – and it’s partly true. Since the 2000 selection, LV polls have matched to the fraudulent recorded vote quite well.

But RV polls more closely matched the True Vote - before the miscounts.

Nov. 1, 2010		House and Senate Forecast Summary
Senate Simulation
(UVA - undecided voter allocation)
			Forecast Seats
Table 1			Dem	GOP
18 RV +19 LV (true vote)			52.9	45.1
37 LV (recorded vote)			49.7	48.3
Table 5
I. UVA: 50% Dem / 50% GOP
No fraud (true vote)			52.7	45.3
3% vote switch (recorded)			49.3	48.7
II. UVA: 60% Dem / 40% GOP
No fraud (true vote)			54.0	44.0
3% Vote switch (recorded)			50.8	47.2
Larry Sabato: Crystal Ball			49	49
Electoral-vote.com			51	48
House Generic Model
(UVA - undecided voter allocation)			Forecast Seats
			Dem	GOP
Table 6
Registered Voter (true vote)			214.1	220.9
Likely Voter (recorded vote)			200.8	234.2
Table 7
I. UVA: 50% Dem / 50% GOP
No fraud (true vote)			214.1	220.9
3% Vote switch (recorded)			200.9	234.1
II. UVA: 60% Dem / 40% GOP
No fraud (true vote)			218.7	216.3
3% Vote switch (recorded)			205.5	229.5
Larry Sabato-Crystal Ball			202	233
Electoral-vote.com			200	217	(18 ties)
Senate
		Average Poll Share				Proj. Share		Simulation		GOP
	Polls	Dem	GOP	Spread		Dem	GOP	Dem	GOP	Win
		%	%	%		%	%	Proj. Seats		Prob
Weighted Average
18 RV+19 LV (True)	37	45.2	44.6	0.6		50.3	49.7	52.9	45.1	0%
37 LV (Recorded)	37	43.5	48.1	(4.6)		47.7	52.3	49.7	48.3	13%
Deviation	-	1.7	(3.5)	5.2		2.6	(2.6)	3.2	(3.2)	-
CNN / Time
RV Wtd Avg (True)	18	49.2	40.6	8.5		54.3	45.7	11	7	-
LV Wtd (Recorded)	18	46.6	45.8	0.9		50.4	49.6	7	10
Deviation	-	2.5	(5.2)	7.7		3.8	(3.8)	4	(3)	-
RV Unwtd Avg	18	46.5	41.6	4.9		52.5	47.5	-	-	-
LV Unwtd Avg	18	45.0	46.2	(1.2)		49.4	50.6	-	-	-
Deviation	-	1.5	(4.6)	6.1		3.1	(3.1)	-	-	-
RV Wtd - LV Unwtd		4.2	(5.6)	9.7		4.9	(4.9)	-	-	-
LVCM Turnout
(50% of RV-LV)
Weighted Avg	18	47.9	43.2	4.7		52.4	47.6	9	7	-
Unweighted Avg	18	45.8	43.9	1.9		50.9	49.1	-	-	-
Deviation	-	2.1	(0.7)	2.8		1.4	(1.4)	2	0	-
Note: Deviations may be off slightly due to rounding
Senate Sensitivity Analysis
Undecided Voter Allocation, Fraud and Poll Type
		Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP
Simulation		40%		50%		60%
Scenario		Gain	Seats	Gain	Seats	Gain	Seats
No Fraud (True Vote)		3.0	44.0	4.3	45.3	5.6	46.6
Fraud: 3% Vote Switch		6.2	47.2	7.7	48.7	8.9	49.9
Deviation		3.2		3.5		3.3
Poll Type
RV (True)		2.9	43.9	4.1	45.1	5.7	46.7
LV (Recorded)		6.1	47.1	7.3	48.3	8.1	49.1
Deviation		3.1		3.2		2.4
House Generic
		Average Poll Share				Proj. Share		Proj. Seats		Win
10/3-10/31	Polls	Dem	GOP	Spread		Dem	GOP	Dem	GOP	Prob
		%	%	%		%	%
RV (True)	19	44.4	45.1	(0.7)		49.6	50.4	214	221	61%
LV (Recorded)	30	41.9	48.7	(6.8)		46.6	53.4	201	234	99%
Deviation	-	2.5	(3.6)	6.1		3.0	(3.0)	13	(13)	-
Total	49	42.9	47.3	(4.4)		47.8	52.2	206	229	94%
2010
Non-Rasmussen	156	43.2	45.8	(2.6)		48.7	51.3	210	225	78%
Rasmussen (LV)	41	37.2	45.4	(8.1)		45.9	54.1	198	237	100%
Deviation	-	6.0	0.4	5.6		2.8	(2.8)	12	(12)	-
Total	197	42.0	45.7	(3.7)		48.1	51.9	208	227	91%

The Fraud Component

Since 2000, likely voter polls have been quite accurate in predicting a bogus, fraudulent recorded vote while registered voter polls have proven to be superior estimates of voter intent. The recorded vote is the handiwork of maliciously programmed, unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators. It follows that a simple model of vote miscount is given by the following pre-election and exit poll discrepancies:

Pre-election:

Fraud factor = Registered voter (RV) projection – Likely voter (LV) projection (i.e. recorded vote)

Senate

Fraud factor = 3.9% = 54.3 – 50.4

Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a 1-seat gain for the GOP (Table 5).

House

Fraud factor = 3.0% = 53.3 – 50.3

Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a 4-seat gain for the GOP (Table 7).

Post-election:

Fraud factor = Unadjusted exit poll – Final exit poll (forced to matched the recorded vote)

(Note: the mainstream media (National Election Pool) did not release unadjusted or preliminary exit polls in 2008 and they won’t in 2010, either.

Pollsters and Pundits are Paid to Project the Recorded Vote – Not the True Vote

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

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

Since 2000, LV poll projections have closely matched recorded vote shares while RV poll projections closely matched unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls. In each election, the final exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote. In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Poll required impossible returning Bush voter turnout in order to match the recorded vote. Since pre-election LV poll predictions also matched the recorded vote, what can we conclude?

The media cites low Democratic enthusiasm in the 2010 midterms, but turnout will exceed the LV sub-sample. Unfortunately, most pollsters won’t provide RV samples in the two weeks prior to the election. The media will gush on how close the final LV predictions came to the vote but ignore the real reason: systemic election fraud.

Mainstream media pollsters and pundits and liberal websites dare not mention the F-word. But why should they when only a few Democratic politicians will even discuss election fraud? But very few are aware just how massive the theft was in 2004. They are quick to concede without calling for recounts. Al Franken was an exception in 2008 but in 2004 he was dismissive of analysts who pointed to exit polls as indicators.

Election activists have been trying for ten years to get the mainstream and media to do a comprehensive investigation. The media would rather focus on bogus GOP claims of non-existent Acorn “voter fraud”.

Pollsters and media pundits are paid to project the official recorded vote. By utilizing LV polls, they anticipate the election fraud they know is coming; the LV polls are a proxy for the recorded vote. One would expect election forecasters to project both the recorded and True Vote – but they dare not mention the fraud factor. They ignore the fact that since the 2000 election, RV projections have closely matched the unadjusted exit polls (i.e. the True Vote). In the 2006 midterms and 2008 presidential elections, RV projections gave the Democrats a 7% higher margin than the corresponding final LVs.

The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM)

Generic polling data shows that Democrats comprise 58% of registered 2-party voters who do not pass the LVCM screen.

In 2004, there were 22 million voters who did not vote in 2000. Nearly 60% of newly registered voters were Democrats for Kerry. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic tsunami gave them control of both houses. In 2008, there were approximately 15 million new voters of whom 70% voted for Obama. All pre-election polls interview registered voters. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the full Registered Voter (RV) sample. LV polls exclude most "new" registered voters – first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election (Table 7a)

.

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

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

Projecting Voter Turnout

The key question is: will Democratic voter turnout overcome the systemic fraud component?

In 2006, before the National Exit Poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote, the Democrats had a 56.4% two-party share (13,251), matching the pre-election RV trend. But the share was forced to match a 53% recorded share in the Final NEP (13,251)."

In 2008 final pre-election RV polls indicated that Obama would win by 15%; the LV polls projected a 7% margin. But unadjusted and preliminary exit poll data has not and will not be made available. That would be nice. But thank goodness for the Final NEP. It’s another in a long line of Smoking Guns. When the Final’s impossible number of returning Bush and third-party phantom voters are replaced by a feasible mix (as it was in 2004), the True Vote analysis indicates that Obama had a 57-58% share and won by 22 million votes. The True Vote landslide was based on the same NEP vote shares that were necessary to match the recorded vote. But who is to say that the NEP vote shares were not adjusted (along with the returning voter mix) as well? After all, that is what happened in 2004.

In 2010, Generic RV and LV polls project that approximately 70% of registered voters will vote.

Democrats comprise 58% of registered 2-party voters who do not pass the LVCM screen.

Pre-election Kerry and Obama poll shares of unlikely voters closely matched their National Exit Poll shares of new voters.

In 2004, final pre-election polls indicated that Kerry had a 58% share of unlikely RVs.

The Preliminary 12:22am National Exit Poll showed that Kerry had a 57% share of first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2000.

In 2008, final pre-election polls gave Obama a 73% share of unlikely RVs.

The Final National Exit Poll indicated he had a 71% share of first-timers and others who did not vote in 2000

The projected turnout of registered voters is a simple ratio of the LV and RV poll samples,

Turnout = LV poll sample / RV poll sample

The Democratic two-party share of unlikely voters is the ratio of unlikely Dem RVs to the total of unlikely Dem and GOP RVs.

Dem share = Dem (RV-LV) / (Dem (RV-LV) + GOP (RV-LV))

Forecasting, Sensitivity Analysis and Win Probabilities

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

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

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

Polling websites generally display only Senate LV polls. CNN/Time has provided both RV and LV samples, but only LVs are listed at realclearpolitics.com. The Senate RV model forecast model is therefore a mix of RV and LV polls. Without a corresponding RV poll for every LV sub-sample, a comparable analysis is difficult.

Unlike the Senate, House Generic polls have been primarily RV samples (except for Rasmussen LVs). But RCP shifted to LV polls on Oct. 11.

Undecided Voters, Turnout and Final Exit Polls

In 1988, 11 million votes were uncounted; in 2000, 6 million; in 2004, 4 million; in 2006, 3 million.

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

Final exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote count (i.e. the final pre-election LV polls). The underlying assumption is that the recorded vote is correct (i.e. zero fraud). In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Polls required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (110% and 103%, respectivrely). In the 2004 Final (13660 respondents), the Bush vote shares were increased dramatically over the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (13047 respondents). The NEP media consortium of news outlets FOX, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC has suppressed the release of 2008 unadjusted state exit polls and unforced preliminary national exit polls. 

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

Consider the historical recorded vote vs. the unadjusted exit polls and the True Vote Model:

1968-2008

The GOP leads the average presidential recorded vote by 49-45%.

The Democrats lead the True Vote by 49-45%.

There were 80 million net uncounted votes in the 11 elections. The vast majority (75-80%) were Democratic.

2000

Gore won the recorded vote by 51-50.5 million (48.4-47.9%). There were nearly six million uncounted votes.

He won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 49.4-46.9%. Gore’s True Vote margin: 50.4-46.2% (4.7 million).

2004

Bush won the recorded vote by 62-59 million (50.7-48.3%). Kerry led the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by 52-47%.

Kerry’s True margin: 53.5-45.5% (10 million)

2006

The Democrats recorded margin was 53-45%. They won the House by 230-205.

They led the final pre-election polls by 56-42% and the unadjusted National Exit Poll by an identical 56-42%

Election fraud cost the Democrats 15-20 House seats.

2008

Obama led by 52-39% in the final RV polls and 50-43% in the LV polls. He won the recorded vote by 52.9-46.5%.

Obama’s True Vote margin: 58-40.5% (22 million).

Obama had 52.6% of 121 million recorded votes on Election Day.

Obama captured 59.2% of 10 million late (paper ballot) votes.

Obama’s True Vote: 58-40.5%

Democrats had 59% of the House (255-178).

Democrats had 60% of the Senate.

	Senate Forecast Model Detail
Table 1								Base Case Assumptions
								Fraud	0.0%	Vote share deviation
	Senate	Current	Dem	GOP	Ind			MoE	4.0%	Poll margin of error
		100	57	41	2			UVA	50.0%	Undecided voter allocation to GOP
	Simulation		Forecast Seats (average of 200 election trials)					RV&LV	Dem	GOP
	Type	Polls	Dem	GOP	GOP Win Prob			Flip to	0	4
	RV&LV	37	52.9	45.1	0.0%			Lean	2	3
	LV	37	49.7	48.3	12.5%			Safe	9	17
								Tossup	6	0
	CNN/Time					Projection
	Type	Polls	Dem	GOP	Margin	Dem	GOP
	RV	18	49.2%	40.6%	8.5%	54.3%	45.7%
	LV	18	46.6%	45.8%	0.9%	50.4%	49.6%
	Latest Polls							Projected Seats
	Type	Polls	Dem	GOP	Margin	Dem	GOP	Dem	GOP
	RV&LV	37	45.2%	44.6%	0.6%	50.3%	49.7%	53	45
	LV	37	43.5%	48.1%	-4.6%	47.7%	52.3%	49	49
								GOP Win	Flip	< MoE
Held by	* tossup	Poll	Dem	GOP	Margin	Dem	GOP	Prob	4	11
R	AK	RV	22	36	(14)	43.0	57.0	100%
R	AL		30	59	(29)	35.5	64.5	100%
D	AR	RV	42	53	(11)	44.5	55.5	100%	GOP
R	AZ		37	51	(14)	43.0	57.0	100%
D	CA	RV	53	37	16	58.0	42.0	0%
D	CO	RV	49	44	5	52.5	47.5	11%		CO
D	CT	RV	56	37	19	59.5	40.5	0%
D	DE	RV	61	32	29	64.5	35.5	0%
R	FL	RV	31	42	(11)	44.5	55.5	100%
R	GA		34	52	(18)	41.0	59.0	100%
D	HI		68	20	48	74.0	26.0	0%
R	IA		37	55	(18)	41.0	59.0	100%
R	ID		27	64	(37)	31.5	68.5	100%
D*	IL	RV	42	38	4	52.0	48.0	16%		IL
D	IN		35	53	(18)	41.0	59.0	100%	GOP
R	KS		27	67	(40)	30.0	70.0	100%
R*	KY	RV	44	46	(2)	49.0	51.0	69%		KY
R	LA		33	54	(21)	39.5	60.5	100%
D	MD		54	38	16	58.0	42.0	0%
R	MO	RV	39	50	(11)	44.5	55.5	100%
R	NC		40	48	(8)	46.0	54.0	98%		NC
D	ND		25	69	(44)	28.0	72.0	100%	GOP
R	NH		44	51	(7)	46.5	53.5	96%		NH
D*	NV	RV	43	39	4	52.0	48.0	16%		NV
D	NY1	RV	60	33	27	63.5	36.5	0%
D	NY2	RV	67	39	28	64.0	36.0	0%
R	OH	RV	43	49	(6)	47.0	53.0	93%		OH
R	OK		24	67	(43)	28.5	71.5	100%
D	OR		54	37	17	58.5	41.5	0%
D*	PA	RV	47	43	4	52.0	48.0	16%		PA
R	SC		30	70	(40)	30.0	70.0	100%
R	SD		30	70	(40)	30.0	70.0	100%
R	UT		25	52	(27)	36.5	63.5	100%
D*	WA	RV	48	44	4	52.0	48.0	16%		WA
D	VT		64	29	35	67.5	32.5	0%
D*	WI	RV	45	48	(3)	48.5	51.5	77%	GOP	WI
D	WV	RV	45	38	7	53.5	46.5	4%		WV
Table 1a	Registered vs. Likely Voters
	0.96	correlation ratio between RV and LV margins
	CNN/TIME
	18	RV full sample				LV sub-sample				50%	Turnout of RV-LV		Dem
	Polls	Dem	Rep	Margin		Dem	Rep	Margin		Dem	Rep	Margin	Prob
	Unwtd Avg	46.5	41.6	4.9		45.0	46.2	(1.2)		45.8	43.9	1.9	75%
	Wtd Avg	49.2	40.6	8.5		46.6	45.8	0.9		47.9	43.2	4.7	95%
	Win	11	7	4		7	10	(3)		9	7	2
	AK	22	36	(14)		23	37	(14)		22.5	36.5	(14.0)	0%
	AR	42	53	(11)		41	55	(14)		41.5	54.0	(12.5)	0%
	CA	53	37	16		50	45	5		51.5	41.0	10.5	100%
	CO	49	44	5		46	47	(1)		47.5	45.5	2.0	76%
	CT	56	37	19		54	44	10		55.0	40.5	14.5	100%
	DE	61	32	29		57	38	19		59.0	35.0	24.0	100%
	FL	31	42	(11)		32	46	(14)		31.5	44.0	(12.5)	0%
	IL	42	38	4		43	42	1		42.5	40.0	2.5	84%
	KY	44	46	(2)		43	50	(7)		43.5	48.0	(4.5)	5%
	MO	39	50	(11)		40	53	(13)		39.5	51.5	(12.0)	0%
	NV	43	39	4		45	49	(4)		44.0	44.0	0.0	50%
	NY1	60	33	27		55	41	14		57.5	37.0	20.5	100%
	NY2	67	39	28		57	41	16		62.0	40.0	22.0	100%
	OH	43	49	(6)		40	55	(15)		41.5	52.0	(10.5)	0%
	PA	47	43	4		45	49	(4)		46.0	46.0	0.0	50%
	WA	48	44	4		51	43	8		49.5	43.5	6.0	98%
	WI	45	48	(3)		44	52	(8)		44.5	50.0	(5.5)	3%
	WV	45	38	7		44	44	0		44.5	41.0	3.5	91%
Table 1b	Sensitivity Analysis: RV vs. LV Turnout
	Effect of RV Turnout and Vote Switching
	18	CNN/Time RV & LV polls
	Vote	Turnout of Excluded Registered Voters (RV- LV)
	Switch	0%	25%	50%	75%	100%
	to GOP %
			Democratic Wins
	None	7	9	9	11	11
	1%	6	6	8	9	11
	2%	6	6	6	7	7
	3%	5	6	5	5	6
	4%	4	4	5	5	5
Table 2	Probability Distribution of GOP Net Gains
	LV										Majority
	Gain	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
	Seats	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51
	Probability
	Exact	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.0%	9.5%	20.0%	30.5%	26.5%	10.5%	2.0%
	At least	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	99.0%	89.5%	69.5%	39.0%	12.5%	2.0%
Table 3	Projection Trend
		LV				RV&LV
				Simulation				Simulation
		Vote Share		GOP Gain		Vote Share		GOP Gain
		Dem	GOP	Seats		Dem	GOP	Seats
	26-Aug	49.02	50.98	6.2		50.48	49.52	4.4
	1-Sep	48.17	51.83	8.0		49.49	50.51	6.0
	10-Sep	47.94	52.06	7.3		49.57	50.43	5.3
	15-Sep	47.77	52.23	6.7		49.27	50.73	4.3
	26-Sep	47.65	52.35	6.4		49.45	50.55	4.2
	29-Sep	47.83	52.17	7.0		50.17	49.83	4.5
	2-Oct	48.09	51.91	7.0		50.47	49.53	4.6
	8-Oct	48.11	51.89	7.4		50.48	49.52	4.3
	15-Oct	48.14	51.86	7.3		50.48	49.52	4.3
	22-Oct	48.03	51.97	6.2		50.47	49.53	4.2
	25-Oct	47.81	52.19	6.7		50.44	49.56	4.2
	1-Nov	47.72	52.28	7.3		50.31	49.69	4.1
Table 4	GOP Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Poll Type
	GOP	Vote Share %		Seats (latest polls)			Seats (simulation)		Net Gain
	UVA	LV	RV&LV	LV	RV&LV		LV	RV&LV	LV	RV&LV
	40%	51.4	48.7	47	44		47.1	43.9	6.1	2.9
	45%	51.9	49.2	49	45		47.6	44.5	6.6	3.5
	50%	52.3	49.7	49	45		48.3	45.1	7.3	4.1
	55%	52.7	50.2	49	45		48.5	45.7	7.5	4.7
	60%	53.1	50.7	49	45		49.1	46.7	8.1	5.7
Table 5	GOP Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch
	Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection (zero fraud)
	Vote switch		Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP
	to GOP	40%	45%	50%	55%	60%
			GOP Net Gain