Richard Charnin’s post-mortem – slightly mathematical, but well worth noting. Election fraud still exists, and it nearly denied a second term to President Obama.
Charnin stands proud for his accurate prediction of 332 EVs – along with John Zogby who predicted 339.
Both Charnin and Zogby use different methods for their analyses, and both are to be commended for the accuracy of their percipience.
Michael Carmichael
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Election Model Post-Mortem: Exactly right at 332 EV
By Richard Charnin
But Obama did much better than that, just as he did much better than his 365 EV in 2008.
The recorded result was confirmed in the model.
Obama had 332 electoral votes based on the recorded vote total – not the True Vote.
Obama was able once again to overcome the built-in FRAUD FACTOR, which would be reflected by a red-shift in the UNADJUSTED EXIT POLLS. But to paraphrase what Alec Baldwin told the real-estate salesmen in the famous opening scene of the classic film Glen Garry Glen Ross:
“These are the unadjusted exit polls. They are gold – but you don’t get them. They’re for NEP only”.
The red-shift did not go away. We do not have the unadjusted exit polls. The True Vote Model forecast the TRUE VOTE as 55-45%. I also projected the RECORDED VOTE based on the pre-election polls from which the Monte Carlo Simulation Model derived Obama’s 99% win probability. No rocket science – and that is why I got it EXACTLY right at 332 EV (the actual SNAPSHOT).
The EXPECTED THEORETICAL 321 EV was based on the summation formula:
EV= ∑ P(I)* EV (I), for I =1,51 STATES. The probability P(I) of winning the state was based on the 2-party poll projection.
Looking at the numbers, assuming that Obama had 51.7% of the two-party recorded vote:
Romney needed 15% of returning Obama 2008 voters and 50% of new voters.
Romney needed a 2% turnout rate advantage of returning McCain voters over Obama voters.
Scroll down to row 375 in this spread sheet to view the sensitivity analysis:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=25
The pollsters anticipate the red-shift without saying so. They use the Likely Voter Cutoff Model which reduces Democratic turnout in their LV polls. And this is very important: they use PREVIOUS election BOGUS RECORDED votes as part of their strategy when they design their sample – and we KNOW that the previous recorded votes were inflated for the Republican.
THE POLLSTERS GOT THE RECORDED VOTE RIGHT; THEY USUALLY DO. BUT THEY ALWAYS AVOID DOING AN ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE TRUE VOTE. THE POLLSTERS ARE PAID TO PREDICT THE RECORDED VOTE – NOT THE TRUE VOTE.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/4380/
