CNN Poll: Gingrich soars, Cain drops

[Soul Crusher]

when you get your news from rush and dick this is what you have to fall on

As opposed to madcow and papantonio?   LOL. 

[MCWAY]

when you get your news from rush and dick this is what you have to fall on

I have those numbers from multiple sources, and despite your foolish obsession with Rush, O chicken-hearted one, nowhere did I cite him for these numbers.

Of course, if you have any numbers to refute that, you're more than welcome to post them. But, I wouldn't bet on that happening, as you'll tuck your tail and run........AGAIN!!!

[blacken700]

I have those numbers from multiple sources, and despite your foolish obsession with Rush, O chicken-hearted one, nowhere did I cite him for these numbers.

Of course, if you have any numbers to refute that, you're more than welcome to post them. But, I wouldn't bet on that happening, as you'll tuck your tail and run........AGAIN!!!

rush told me 

[Soul Crusher]

rush told me 

[Straw Man]

Says THIS GUY....as well as Dick Morris:

An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis Not Required

Richard Charnin

Oct. 31, 2011

It’s very surprising that election forecasting blogs and academics who use the latest state polls as input to their models don’t apply basic probability, statistics and simulation concepts in forecasting the electoral vote and corresponding win probabilities.

A meta-analysis or simulation is not required to calculate the expected electoral vote. Of course the individual state projections will depend on the forecasting method used. But the projection method is not the main issue here; it’s how the associated win probabilities are used to calculate the expected EV, win probability and frequency distribution.

Calculating the expected electoral vote is a three-step process:
1. Project the 2-party vote share V(i) for each state(i) as the sum of the poll share PS(i) and the undecided voter allocation UVA(i):
V(i)= PS(i) + UVA(i)

2. Calculate the probability P(i) of winning state (i) given the margin of error (95% confidence):
P(i) = NORMDIST (V(i), 0.5, MoE/1.96, true)

3. Calculate the total expected electoral vote EV as the sum:
EV = ∑ P(i) * EV(i), for i = 1,51

The 2004 Election Model allocated 75% of the undecided vote to Kerry and projected that he would have 337 electoral votes (99% win probability) with a 51.8% two-party vote share. The unadjusted, pristine state exit poll aggregate provided by exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky 3 months after the election indicated that Kerry won 52.0% of the vote with an identical 337 electoral votes.

http://richardcharnin.com/ElectionModel.htm

The challenger is expected to win the majority (60-90% UVA) of the undecided vote, depending on incumbent job performance. Gallup allocated 90% of undecided voters to Kerry in their final projection, pollsters Zogby and Harris: 75-80%. The National Exit Poll indicated that 65% of undecided voters broke for Kerry. Bush had a 48% approval rating on Election Day 2004.

After calculating the individual state probabilities, we can calculate the EV win probability. The best, most straightforward method is Monte Carlo simulation. This technique is widely used in many different applications when an analytical solution is prohibitive and is perfectly suited for calculating the EV win probability. The Election Model uses a 5000 election trial simulation. The win probability is the total number of winning election trials/5000.

The average electoral vote is calculated for the 5000 election trials. Of course, the average will only be an approximation to the theoretical value based on the summation formula. But the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) applies: the EV average and median are usually within one or two electoral votes of the theoretical mean. The close match between the Monte Carlo EV simulation average, median and theoretical expected mean is proof that 5000 election trials are more than sufficient. Meta-Analysis is an unnecessarily complex method and overkill for calculating the expected Electoral Vote when it can be calculated by the simple summation formula given above.

Princeton Professor Wang’s EV estimator is an unnecessarily complex method and overkill for calculating the expected Electoral Vote. His Meta-analysis projected that Kerry would win 311 electoral votes and had a 98% win probability. But he was wrong to suggest that Bush won the undecided vote as an explanation for why his forecast was “wrong”. Just like AAPOR, the media pundits and political scientists, Wang never considered that Election Fraud was the cause. But overwhelming statistical and other documented evidence indicates that the election was stolen, just like it was in 2000.
http://election.princeton.edu/code/matlab/EV_estimator.m
http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/pollcalc.html

The 2008 Election Model includes a sensitivity (risk) analysis of five Obama undecided voter (UVA) scenario assumptions ranging from 40-80%, with 60% as the base case. This enables one to view the effects of the UVA factor variable on the expected electoral vote and win probability. Electoral vote forecasting models which do not provide a risk factor sensitivity analysis are incomplete.

http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm

so this guys method projected Kerry as the winner in 2004?

[MCWAY]

so this guys method projected Kerry as the winner in 2004?

No.

As I said earlier, he got the lion's share of the undecideds (Gallup cited 90%), though that wasn't enough to get the win.

The point is my statement, regarding about 80% of undecideds going to the challenger vs. an incumbent has the historical facts to back it.

If you have numbers to the contrary, let's see them.

[Straw Man]

No.

As I said earlier, he got the lion's share of the undecideds (Gallup cited 90%), though that wasn't enough to get the win.

The point is my statement, regarding about 80% of undecideds going to the challenger vs. an incumbent has the historical facts to back it.

If you have numbers to the contrary, let's see them.

you're saying Gallup shows that Kerry got 90% of the independent vote in 2004

If so, I'm curious what % of voters are actually independent at that point

Are we talking single digits

If a candidate wins 90% of the vote from one group and still loses the election that how relevent is that group in the first place?

[Freeborn126]

So now Newt cheating on his wife isn't as bad as Herman Cain allegedly telling a woman she was as tall as his wife?

 

[Straw Man]

So now Newt cheating on his wife isn't as bad as Herman Cain allegedly telling a woman she was as tall as his wife? 

nope

Newt was and still is fucked

Cain is now fucked too

[MCWAY]

you're saying Gallup shows that Kerry got 90% of the independent vote in 2004

If so, I'm curious what % of voters are actually independent at that point

Are we talking single digits

If a candidate wins 90% of the vote from one group and still loses the election that how relevent is that group in the first place?

The relevancy that you keep missing is the trend itself. If Obama is tied or slightly ahead of his GOP challengerand there's a considerable amount of undecideds, they'll break for the challenger and Obama is GONE!!!

[Straw Man]

The relevancy that you keep missing is the trend itself. If Obama is tied or slightly ahead of his GOP challengerand there's a considerable amount of undecideds, they'll break for the challenger and Obama is GONE!!!

first, I don't even buy the argument that Independents are going to vote en masse against the incumbent just because he's the incumbent

second, you've already shown that you're making a point tha is basically irrelevent in terms of actual results.  

from your earlier post:

Gallup allocated 90% of undecided voters to Kerry in their final projection,  pollsters Zogby and Harris: 75-80%. The National Exit Poll indicated that 65% of undecided voters broke for Kerry

so Kerry only got 65% of incumbents and still lost

[MCWAY]

first, I don't even buy the argument that Independents are going to vote en masse against the incumbent just because he's the incumbent

second, you've already shown that you're making a point tha is basically irrelevent in terms of actual results.  

from your earlier post:
 

so Kerry only got 65% of incumbents and still lost

Whether you buy it or not makes no difference. Those are the facts. I see little thus far to suggest Obama is an exception to that.

Did you missed the part where I said, if Obama is slightly ahead or tied? Bush has a substantial lead on Kerry, that even all the undecideds breaking his way made no difference for Kerry.