An Open Letter to Nate Silver from Richard Charnin

 

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.

 

2004 Battleground states

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poll      

Kerry

Bush

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zogby   

50.2

44.8

Average

 

 

 

 

 

Projection

53.7

45.9

75% undecided to Kerry

 

 

 

Exit Poll

53.2

45.8

Unadjusted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zogby

Poll

 

Projection

 

Exit Poll

 

Recorded

 

 

Kerry

Bush

Kerry

Bush

Kerry

Bush

Kerry

Bush

CO   

47

48

50.3

49.1

50.1

48.6

47.4

52.1

FL   

50

47

51.9

47.6

50.9

48.3

47.3

52.3

IA   

50

44

54.2

45.4

50.7

48.4

49.5

50.1

ME   

50

39

57.6

41.5

55.5

42.7

54.1

45.1

MI   

52

45

53.9

45.6

54.4

44.7

51.5

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MN   

52

44

54.5

44.8

55.7

43

51.5

47.9

OH   

50

47

52.3

47.7

54.2

45.4

48.9

51.1

PA   

50

45

53.8

46.3

55.3

44

51.3

48.7

WI   

51

44

54.3

45.1

52

47

49.9

49.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

50.2

44.8

53.7

45.9

53.2

45.8

50.1

49.5

 

 

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.

 

                Gallup                       Change     Change                     R2K                          Change     Change

                Obama      McCain     Obama      McCain                     Obama      McCain     Obama      McCain

Avg           49.65        42.90        0.15          -0.15                         50.29        42.21        0.06          -0.02

Stdev        2.02          1.74          0.94          0.89                          1.59          1.86          0.70          0.73

 

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.

And it does not hesitate to characterize anyone who questions the official count as a conspiracy nut. 

Like in this conversation on the 2008 election.

 

 

TABLE 1

DEMOCRATIC SHARES OF VARIOUS AGE GROUPS

 

 

Avg

18-29 dem

Prob (18-29> given group)

18-29

46.30

 2-party

any race

 ALL races

30-44

41.95

52.46%

94.63%

33.17%

45-59

40.40

53.40%

98.69%

76.81%

60+

36.10

56.19%

100.00%

99.95%

 

 

2-party

52.46%

47.54%

46.60%

 

Correl

1

0.88

0.73

0.71

Stdev

6.67

7.07

4.55

6.06

Avg

46.3

41.95

40.4

36.1

 

18-29

30-44

45-59

60+

1

44

42

41

38

2

59

58

50

48

3

61

49

42

50

4

48

45

39

34

5

39

27

36

26

6

44

42

44

37

7

37

30

35

29

8

54

46

42

33

9

48

45

38

34

10

38

35

31

29

11

38

36

34

33

12

39

32

37

33

13

48

47

43

42

14

47

44

41

37

15

52

45

43

29

16

46

45

40

37

17

48

44

44

40

18

46

42

40

37

19

42

41

40

36

20

48

44

48

40

 

 

 

TABLE 2

R2K DAILY POLL vs. 3-DAY MOVING AVERAGE 

 

DAILY                                     3-DAY AVERAGE

 

 

 

 

 

Obama

3-day Moving avg

 

 

McCain

 Obama

Margin

Change

McCain

Obama

 

Avg

42.45

50.21

7.77

1.02

42.32

50.26

 

Stdev

2.12

1.83

3.68

0.71

1.90

1.59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1103

45

52

7

2

45.67

50.67

 

1102

46

50

4

0

45.00

50.67

 

1101

46

50

4

2

44.33

51.33

 

1031

43

52

9

0

44.00

51.33

 

1030

44

52

8

2

44.67

50.67

 

1029

45

50

5

0

44.67

50.00

 

1028

45

50

5

0

44.33

49.67

 

1027

44

50

6

1

43.00

49.67

 

1026

44

49

5

1

41.67

50.00

 

1025

41

50

9

1

40.00

51.33

 

1024

40

51

11

2

40.00

51.67

 

1023

39

53

14

2

40.00

52.00

 

1022

41

51

10

1

41.00

51.33

 

1021

40

52

12

1

41.33

51.00

 

1020

42

51

9

1

42.33

50.33

 

1019

42

50

8

0

42.33

49.67

 

1018

43

50

7

1

43.00

49.67

 

1017

42

49

7

1

42.67

50.33

 

1016

44

50

6

2

42.33

51.67

 

1015

42

52

10

1

41.33

52.00

 

1014

41

53

12

2

41.00

52.00

 

1013

41

51

10

1

40.67

52.00

 

1012

41

52

11

1

40.33

52.33

 

1011

40

53

13

1

39.67

52.67

 

1010

40

52

12

1

39.67

52.33

 

1009

39

53

14

1

40.33

51.67

 

1008

40

52

12

2

41.00

50.67

 

1007

42

50

8

0

41.33

50.67

 

1006

41

50

9

2

40.67

51.67

 

1005

41

52

11

1

40.00

52.33

 

1004

40

53

13

1

39.67

52.33

 

1003

39

52

13

0

39.67

51.67

 

1002

40

52

12

1

40.33

51.00

 

1001

40

51

11

1

40.33

50.67

 

930

41

50

9

1

40.67

51.00

 

929

40

51

11

1

41.00

51.33

 

928

41

52

11

1

42.00

51.00

 

927

42

51

9

1

42.67

49.67

 

926

43

50

7

2

42.67

49.00

 

925

43

48

5

1

43.00

48.33

 

924

42

49

7

1

43.00

48.67

 

923

44

48

4

1

43.67

48.33

 

922

43

49

6

1

43.33

48.67

 

921

44

48

4

1

43.00

48.67

 

920

43

49

6

0

42.33

49.33

 

919

42

49

7

1

42.00

49.67

 

918

42

50

8

0

42.33

49.33

 

917

42

50

8

2

43.00

48.67

 

916

43

48

5

0

44.00

48.00

 

915

44

48

4

0

44.67

48.00

 

914

45

48

3

0

45.67

47.33

 

913

45

48

3

2

46.00

46.67

 

912

47

46

-1

0

46.00

46.67

 

911

46

46

0

2

46.00

46.67

 

910

45

48

3

2

Na

na

 

909

47

46

-1

Na

Na

na

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3

GALLUP vs. R2K TRACKING POLLS (3-DAY AVERAGE)

 

 

                        GALLUP                                                         RESEARCH 2000

 

 

Gallup

 

Change

Change

 

R2K

 

Change

Change

 

Obama

McCain

Obama

McCain

 

Obama

McCain

Obama

McCain

Avg

49.65

42.90

0.15

-0.15

 

50.29

42.21

0.06

-0.02

Stdev

2.02

1.74

0.94

0.89

 

1.59

1.86

0.70

0.73

Correlation

         0.70

         0.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1102

53

40

1

-1

 

51

44

0

0

1101

52

41

0

0

 

51

44

0

-1

1031

52

41

0

0

 

51

45

1

0

1030

52

41

2

-1

 

50

45

0

1

1029

50

42

-1

0

 

50

44

0

1

1028

51

42

1

-1

 

50

43

0

1

1027

50

43

-2

1

 

50

42

-1

2

1026

52

42

1

0

 

51

40

-1

0

1025

51

42

0

0

 

52

40

0

0

1024

51

42

1

0

 

52

40

1

-1

1023

50

42

0

-1

 

51

41

0

0

1022

50

43

-1

1

 

51

41

1

-1

1021

51

42

-1

1

 

50

42

0

0

1020

52

41

0

0

 

50

42

0

-1

1019

52

41

0

-1

 

50

43

0

0

1018

52

42

2

0

 

50

43

-2

1

1017

50

42

0

-1

 

52

42

0

1

1016

50

43

1

0

 

52

41

0

0

1015

49

43

-1

0

 

52

41

0

0

1014

50

43

-1

1

 

52

41

0

1

1013

51

42

0

1

 

52

40

-1

0

1012

51

41

1

-2

 

53

40

1

0

1011

50

43

-1

1

 

52

40

0

0

1010

51

42

0

1

 

52

40

1

-1

1009

51

41

-1

0

 

51

41

0

0

1008

52

41

0

0

 

51

41

-1

0

1007

52

41

1

-1

 

52

41

0

1

1006

51

42

1

0

 

52

40

0

0

1005

50

42

0

-1

 

52

40

0

0

1004

50

43

0

1

 

52

40

1

0

1003

50

42

1

0

 

51

40

0

0

1002

49

42

1

-1

 

51

40

0

-1

1001

48

43

0

-1

 

51

41

0

0

930

48

44

-1

1

 

51

41

0

-1

929

49

43

-1

1

 

51

42

1

-1

928

50

42

0

0

 

50

43

1

0

927

50

42

1

-2

 

49

43

1

0

926

49

44

1

-1

 

48

43

-1

0

925

48

45

2

-1

 

49

43

1

-1

924

46

46

-1

2

 

48

44

-1

1

923

47

44

0

0

 

49

43

0

0

922

47

44

-1

0

 

49

43

0

1

921

48

44

-1

-1

 

49

42

-1

0

920

49

45

-1

1

 

50

42

1

0

919

50

44

1

0

 

49

42

0

-1

918

49

44

1

0

 

49

43

1

-1

917

48

44

1

-1

 

48

44

0

-1

916

47

45

1

-2

 

48

45

1

-1

915

46

47

1

0

 

47

46

0

0

914

45

47

0

0

 

47

46

0

0

913

45

47

0

0

 

47

46

0

0

912

45

47

0

-1

 

47

46

-1

1

 

 

TABLE 4

ALL POLLS VS. RESEARCH 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Projected Vote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Undecided Voter Allocation

 

 

 

 

 

 

All POLLS

 

 

 

75%

25%

 

 

Research 2000

 

 

 

 

Obama

McCain

Margin

Obama

McCain

Margin

 

Obama

McCain

Margin

 

 

Average

49.87

42.67

7.2

54.34

44.16

10.19

 

50.33

42.33

8

 

 

Stdev

2.434

2.426

3.74

2.022

2.022

4.04

 

1.53

1.93

3.23

 

 

Max

54

47

16

59.88

47.63

21.25

 

53

46

13

Pollster

Sample

Min

44

36

0

50.88

38.63

3.25

 

47

40

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          Nov

 

 

 

Marist

804LV

11/03 - 11/03

52

43

9

54.6

43.9

10.8

4

51

46

5

FOX News

971LV

11/02 - 11/03

50

43

7

54.1

44.4

9.8

3

51

45

6

Zogby

1201LV

11/01 - 11/03

54

43

11

55.1

43.4

11.8

2

51

44

7

NBC/WSJ

1011LV

11/01 - 11/02

51

43

8

54.4

44.1

10.3

1

51

44

7

Research2k

1100LV

10/31 - 11/02

51

44

7

53.6

44.9

8.8

3

51

45

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

               Oct

 

 

 

Gallup

2847RV

10/31 - 11/02

53

40

13

57.1

41.4

15.8

30

50

45

5

Hotline/FD

882LV

10/31 - 11/02

50

45

5

52.6

45.9

6.8

29

50

44

6

Rasmussen

3000LV

10/31 - 11/02

51

46

5

52.1

46.4

5.8

28

50

43

7

ABC/WP

2446RV

10/31 - 11/02

54

41

13

56.6

41.9

14.8

27

50

42

8

CNN

1017LV

10/30 - 11/01

51

43

8

54.4

44.1

10.3

26

51

40

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pew

2587LV

10/30 - 11/01

49

42

7

54.6

43.9

10.8

25

52

40

12

Marist

543LV

10/29 - 10/29

50

43

7

54.1

44.4

9.8

24

52

40

12

CBS

1005LV

10/28 - 10/31

54

41

13

56.6

41.9

14.8

23

51

41

10

FOX News

924LV

10/28 - 10/29

47

44

3

52.6

45.9

6.8

22

51

41

10

Battleground

1000LV

10/27 - 10/30

49

45

4

52.4

46.1

6.3

21

50

42

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ipsos

831LV

10/23 - 10/27

50

45

5

52.6

45.9

6.8

20

50

42

8

Pew

1325RV

10/23 - 10/26

52

36

16

59.9

38.6

21.3

19

50

43

7

Newsweek

882LV

10/22 - 10/23

53

41

12

56.4

42.1

14.3

18

50

43

7

FOX News

936LV

10/20 - 10/21

49

40

9

56.1

42.4

13.8

17

52

42

10

CBS/NYT

771LV

10/19 - 10/22

52

39

13

57.6

40.9

16.8

16

52

41

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NBC/WSJ

1159RV

10/18 - 10/20

52

42

10

55.4

43.1

12.3

15

52

41

11

CNN

764LV

10/17 - 10/19

51

46

5

52.1

46.4

5.8

14

52

41

11

Ipsos

773LV

10/16 - 10/20

50

42

8

54.9

43.6

11.3

13

52

40

12

Pew Resrch

2382LV

10/16 - 10/19

53

39

14

57.9

40.6

17.3

12

53

40

13

Pew Resrch

1191LV

10/12 - 10/14

50

40

10

56.4

42.1

14.3

11

52

40

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CBS/NYT

699LV

10/10 - 10/13

53

39

14

57.9

40.6

17.3

10

52

40

12

LAT

1030LV

10/10 - 10/13

50

41

9

55.6

42.9

12.8

9

51

41

10

Ipsos

1036RV

10/9 - 10/13

48

39

9

56.6

41.9

14.8

8

51

41

10

ABC/WP

766LV

10/09 - 10/11

53

43

10

54.9

43.6

11.3

7

52

41

11

Newsweek

1035RV

10/08 - 10/09

52

41

11

56.1

42.4

13.8

6

52

40

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOX News

900RV

10/08 - 10/09

46

39

7

56.1

42.4

13.8

5

52

40

12

NBC/WSJ

658RV

10/04 - 10/05

49

43

6

53.9

44.6

9.3

4

52

40

12

CBS/NYT

616LV

10/03 - 10/05

48

45

3

52.1

46.4

5.8

3

51

40

11

CNN

694LV

10/03 - 10/05

53

45

8

53.4

45.1

8.3

2

51

40

11

Ipsos

858RV

10/02 - 10/06

47

40

7

55.6

42.9

12.8

1

51

41

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             Sept

 

 

 

Marist

943LV

09/28 - 09/30

49

44

5

53.1

45.4

7.8

30

51

41

10

AP/GfK

808LV

09/27 - 09/30

48

41

7

55.1

43.4

11.8

29

51

42

9

CBS/NYT

769LV

09/27 - 09/30

50

41

9

55.6

42.9

12.8

28

50

43

7

Ipsos

1007RV

09/27 - 09/30

48

45

3

52.1

46.4

5.8

27

49

43

6

Time

1133LV

09/27 - 09/29

50

43

7

54.1

44.4

9.8

26

48

43

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pew Resrch

1181LV

09/27 - 09/29

49

43

6

53.9

44.6

9.3

25

49

43

6

ABC/WP

916LV

09/27 - 09/29

50

46

4

51.9

46.6

5.3

24

48

44

4

CBS/NYT

844RV

09/22 - 09/24

47

42

5

54.1

44.4

9.8

23

49

43

6

ABC/WP

780LV

09/20 - 09/22

52

43

9

54.6

43.9

10.8

22

49

43

6

FOX News

900RV

09/20 - 09/22

45

39

6

55.9

42.6

13.3

21

49

42

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ipsos

923RV

09/20 - 09/22

44

43

1

52.6

45.9

6.8

20

50

42

8

NBC/WSJ

838LV

09/19 - 09/22

48

46

2

51.4

47.1

4.3

19

49

42

7

LAT

1085RV

09/19 - 09/22

49

45

4

52.4

46.1

6.3

18

49

43

6

CNN

697LV

09/19 - 09/21

51

47

4

51.4

47.1

4.3

17

48

44

4

Zogby

1008LV

09/13 - 09/15

47

45

2

51.9

46.6

5.3

16

48

45

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ipsos

1046RV

09/13 - 09/15

45

45

0

51.4

47.1

4.3

15

48

46

2

CBS/NYT

800LV

09/12 - 09/16

49

44

5

53.1

45.4

7.8

14

47

46

1

Quinnipiac

987LV

09/11 - 09/16

49

45

4

52.4

46.1

6.3

13

47

46

1

Newsweek

1038RV

09/10 - 09/11

46

46

0

50.9

47.6

3.3

12

47

46

1

 

 

TABLE 5

2008 TRUE VOTE POLLSTER RANK

 

 

 

End

 

 

Final Poll

 

Projection

 

Rank

Poll

Date

Sample

MoE

Obama

McCain

Obama

McCain

1

 Gallup

2-Nov

 2847RV

1.84%

53

40

57.13

41.38

2

 ABC/WP

2-Nov

 2446RV

1.98%

54

41

56.63

41.88

3

 CBS

31-Oct

 1005LV

3.09%

54

41

56.63

41.88

4

 Zogby

3-Nov

 1201LV

2.83%

54

43

55.13

43.38

5

 Marist

3-Nov

 804LV

3.46%

52

43

54.63

43.88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

 Pew

1-Nov

 2587LV

1.93%

49

42

54.63

43.88

7

 NBC/WSJ

2-Nov

 1011LV

3.08%

51

43

54.38

44.13

8

 CNN

1-Nov

 1017LV

3.07%

51

43

54.38

44.13

9

 FOX News

3-Nov

 971LV

3.14%

50

43

54.13

44.38

10

 Marist

29-Oct

 543LV

4.21%

50

43

54.13

44.38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

 Research2k

2-Nov

 1100LV

2.95%

51

44

53.63

44.88

12

 Hotline/FD

2-Nov

 882LV

3.30%

50

45

52.63

45.88

13

 FOX News

29-Oct

 924LV

3.22%

47

44

52.63

45.88

14

 Battleground

30-Oct

 1000LV

3.10%

49

45

52.38

46.13

15

 Rasmussen

2-Nov

 3000LV

1.79%

51

46

52.13

46.38

 

 

TABLE 6

2008 REGISTERED AND LIKELY VOTER POLLS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Projection: Allocate Undecided

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75%

25%

 

LV Poll

Size

Date

Obama

McCain

Margin

 

Obama

McCain

Margin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOX News

971

 11/02-03

50

43

7

 

54.1

44.4

9.8

Hotline/FD

882

 10/31-11/02

50

45

5

 

52.6

45.9

6.8

Rasmussen

3000

 10/31-11/02

51

46

5

 

52.1

46.4

5.8

CNN

1017

 10/30-11/01

51

43

8

 

54.4

44.1

10.3

Pew

2587

 10/30-11/01

49

42

7

 

54.6

43.9

10.8

Average

1872

 10/30-11/03

50.3

44

6.3

 

53.4

45.1

8.4

 

Zogby (LV)

1201

 11/01-03

54

43

11

 

55.1

43.4

11.8

 

RV Poll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gallup

2847

 10/31-11/02

53

40

13

 

57.1

41.4

15.8

ABC/WP

2446

 10/31-11/02

54

41

13

 

56.6

41.9

14.8

CBS

1005

 10/28-31

54

41

13

 

56.6

41.9

14.8

Pew

1325

 10/23-26

52

36

16

 

59.9

38.6

21.3

Total

7623

 10/23-11/02

53.3

39.5

13.8

 

57.6

40.9

16.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gallup+ABC

5293

 10/31-11/02

53.5

40.5

13

 

56.9

41.6

15.3

MoE= 1.96 * [ sqrt (.577 * .423) / 5293 ] = 1.8%

 

2pty

57.7

42.3

15.5

 

 

 

TABLE 7

2008 TRUE VOTE ANALYSIS

 

 

National

 

 

2008

True Vote Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turnout in 2008

      Unctd / stuffed

 

Cast

0

Unctd

Alive

Cast

Official

Unctd

Mortality

Kerry

Bush

Kerry

Bush

Other

 

125.7

122.3

3.4

119.4

132.6

131.4

1.2

6.6

97%

97%

75%

25%

0%

 

-

97.3%

2.7%

95.0%

-

99.1%

0.9%

5.0%

-

-

0%

100%

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National

Vote (mil)

422 EV

Pct

Share (%)

 

Vote (mil)

 

 

MoE

2004

Cast

Recorded

Alive

Turnout

Mix

Obama

McCain

Other

Obama

McCain

Other

Turnout

1.6%

DNV

 -

 -

 -

16.4

12.4

71.0

27.0

2.0

11.7

4.4

0.33

 

1.1%

Kerry

67.1

59.0

63.8

61.9

46.8

89.0

10.0

1.0

55.1

6.2

0.62

97%

1.3%

Bush

57.0

62.0

54.1

52.5

39.7

17.0

82.0

1.0

8.9

43.0

0.52

97%

1.6%

Other

0.0

1.2

1.6

1.5

1.1

72.0

17.0

11.0

1.1

0.3

0.17

97%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True

125.7

122.3

119.5

132.3

 

58.0

40.8

1.2

76.7

53.9

1.64

97%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2004

Kerry

Bush

Other

Recorded

52.9

45.6

1.5

69.5

59.9

1.98

131.4

 

Recorded

48.3

50.7

1.0

Diff

 

5.1

-4.9

-0.3

7.3

-6.0

-0.34

 

 

Cast

49.4

49.6

1.0

Exit Poll

Na

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exit Poll

52.0

47.0

1.0

Diff

 

Na

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sensitivity Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush

 

Kerry voter turnout

 

 

Share of

Obama Share of DNV

 

turnout

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

 

Bush

69%

70%

71%

72%

73%

 

 

 

Obama Share (%)

 

 

 

 

Obama Share (%)

 

 

90%

58.9

59.1

59.3

59.5

59.6

 

19%

58.6

58.7

58.8

58.9

59.0

 

92%

58.5

58.7

58.8

59.0

59.2

 

18%