Monthly Archives: October 2010

2010 Midterms Model – LV forecast matches Sabato’s Crystal Ball and…

Richard Charnin’s 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraud

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Oct. 28, 2010

The Charnin 2010 House and Senate forecast model is based on a comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls. The LV projections have been confirmed by Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball and

All pre-election polls interview registered voters (RV); likely voters (LV) are a sub-sample based on the likely voter cutoff model (LVCM). But and the media focus on likely voters. During the last month in every election cycle, RV polls are largely unreported by the media.

The Charnin model goes further than these and other models. It does not assume that LV polls are representative of the electorate. It is true that since the 2000 election, final projections based on likely voter (LV) polls have been quite accurate in predicting the recorded vote. But the recorded vote represents a fraudulent vote count.
Every one knows it. But only election activists talk about it.

In fact, projections based on RV polls closely approximate the True Vote. The RV polls measure the true intent of the voters – before their votes are hacked by unverifiable voting machines and central tabulators. LV polls predict a miscounted recorded vote. The pollsters and pundits don’t dare talk about that.

Therefore a simple model of vote miscount is:
Fraud = RV – LV

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. They should 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.

In 2006 the unadjusted National Exit Poll indicated that the Democrats had a 56.4% share, matching the pre-election RV trend. But the Final NEP was forced to match the 53% recorded share.

In 2008 final pre-election RV polls indicated that Obama would win by 15%; the LV polls projected a 7% margin. Unadjusted 2008 exit poll data has not and will not be made available. That would be nice. But a True Vote analysis based on Final 2008 NEP vote shares indicates that Obama had a 58% share and won by 22 million votes. The impossible NEP returning percentage of phantom Bush voters was replaced by a feasible mix, just like it was in calculating the 2004 True Vote.

In 2010, it’s still the same old story. We can expect that the recorded vote will match the average LV projection.

The Democrats lead 18 Senate RV polls by 8.5% but only by 1.5% in the corresponding LV polls.
The GOP leads the latest House Generic LV polls by 6.6% and the RV polls by just 1.2%.

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

Senate Simulation Forecast
(UVA – undecided voter allocation)

Forecast Seats
Democrats GOP Dem Margin
Charnin Model
I. Equal undecided voter split

No fraud................. 52.8 45.2 7.6
Registered Voter (RV).... 52.9 45.1 7.8

Fraud: 3% Vote switch..... 49.2 48.8 1.4
Likely Voter (LV)......... 49.9 48.1 1.8 (projected recorded seats)

Larry Sabato: Crystal Ball.......49 49 0 (close match to above LV / Fraud) 50 49 1

Charnin Model
II. Undecided voters break to Democrats
UVA: 60% Dem / 40% GOP

No fraud.................... 54.1 43.9 10.2
Registered Voter (RV).... 53.9 44.1 8.8

Fraud: 3% Vote switch.. 50.8 47.2 3.6
Likely Voter (LV).......... 51.1 46.9 4.2

House Forecast Models
Forecast Seats
Democrats GOP GOP Margin
Charnin Model
I. Equal undecided voter split

Registered Voter (RV).... 213 222 9
Likely Voter (LV).......... 201 234 33 (projected fraudulent result)

II. Undecided voters break to Democrats
UVA: 60% Dem / 40% GOP

No fraud............. 218 217 -1 (Dems retain control if they get a heavy turnout and undecided voters)
Fraud: 3% Vote switch.. 205 230 25

Larry Sabato - Crystal Ball 202 233 31 (close match to LV/ Fraud) 206 209 3 (20 seats are too close to call)


2010 Midterms: What the Pollsters and Pundits Will and Won’t Tell You

2010 Midterms: What the Pollsters and Pundits Will and Won’t Tell You

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Oct. 27, 2010

They tell you that since the 2000 selection, likely voter (LV) pre-election polls have been very accurate in matching the recorded vote. That is true. But they won’t tell you that the votes were miscounted in each election. Elections were stolen in 2000 and 2004 and landslides denied in 2006 and 2008 due to Election Fraud, not by non-existent: “voter fraud”. In fact, LV polls have been good predictors of stolen elections.

They tell you that registered voter polls (RV) don’t reflect actual voter turnout. It’s true- not all registered voter turnout. But they won’t tell you that predictions based on RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls in 2004, 2006 and 2008. Or that over 80 million votes were uncounted in the 11 elections since 1968.

They tell you that Republicans are poised to net close to 60 seats. But they won’t tell you that predictions based on likely voter (LV) polls are biased to the Republicans since most registered voters who do not pass the likely voter cutoff model (LVCM) screen are Democrats. Or that 10% are undecided.

They tell you that the Republicans have an outside chance of taking the Senate. But they don’t tell you that the Democrats lead the weighted average of 18 senate RV polls by 49.4-40.4% and are ahead in 11 of the 18. But they lead by just 46.5-45.3% in the corresponding LV polls in which they are projected to win 8.

They tell you that the exit polls reflect the voting demographic. But they won’t tell you that final exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote.

They tell you that 2004 pre-election polls predicted Bush would win. But they won’t tell you they were LV polls before allocating undecided voters. Or that the RV polls adjusted for undecided voters predicted a 51-48% Kerry win. Or that Kerry won the 114,000 state unadjusted exit poll aggregate by 52-47%. Or that he won the 13,047 respondent Preliminary 12:22am National Exit Poll by 51-48% before it was reversed to match the recorded vote in the 13,660 respondent Final.

They tell you that Bush won by 3 million votes. But they won’t tell you that the Final NEP required over 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still living in 2004 in order to match the recorded vote.

They tell you that in the 2006 midterms, the Democrats won the House by 52-46% (230-205 seats). But they won’t tell you that the final pre-election polls had the Democrats winning by 15% and the unadjusted NEP by 15%. Or that15-20 Democratic seats were stolen (primarily in FL, OH, NM and IL).

They tell you that the 2008 pre-election LV polls predicted Obama’s 52.9-45.6% recorded share– a 9.5 million vote margin. But they don’t tell you that the RV polls projected that he would win by 15% and that he won the True Vote by 17% (22 million votes).

They tell you that the 2008 NEP shows that Obama won by 7%. But they won’t tell you that the NEP required a 103% turnout of living 2004 Bush voters to match the recorded vote: 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters. And they won’t tell you that 5 million returning third party voters were also required even though only 1.2 million were recorded in 2004. They won’t explain why unadjusted and preliminary exit poll results have never been made available.

In the 2010 midterms, they will produce final exit polls that we know are forced to match the recorded vote. They won’t tell you why the unadjusted and preliminary exit polls won’t be released. But the cat is out of the bag. We know why: they would show that the Democrats did much better than the recorded vote and that the GOP stole 20 House and perhaps 3 Senate seats.

Lincoln was right: You can fool some of the people all of the time.


2010 Midterms Model: RV vs. LV Turnout Stats (10/22)

Oct. 22, 2010

All Pre-election polls interview registered voters (RV); likely voter (LV) polls are a sub-sample based on the likely voter cutoff model (LVCM). But the widely-followed and other election sites show only the LV samples. RV poll listings are being phased out. It happens in every election cycle.

Generic polls from Gallup, AP, FOX, Reuters and ABC show that a solid majority of registered voters excluded from the LV subset are Democrats.

The House and Senate forecast models provide a comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls. The assumption is that the election is held today.


Based on the latest LV polls, the Monte Carlo Simulation projects a 51-47 seat Democratic majority. The GOP has a 4% probability of winning the Senate.

Based on a mix of RV and LV polls the Democrats will have a 53-45 majority.
The GOP has a 0% win probability.

CNN/Time lists 18 RV polls in which the Democrats lead by 5.2%.
The Democrats trail by 1.1% in the corresponding 18 LVs.

House Generic Ballot

Starting Oct. 11, RCP no longer includes RV polls in the Generic Average.

The GOP leads by 1.4% in the latest 22 RV polls and 6.9% in the latest 27 LV polls.

Based on the latest 27 LV Generic polls, the GOP has a 99% probability of winning the House (234 seats). Based on the latest 22 RV polls, the GOP has a 69% win probability (222 seats).

Note that 40 of the 175 polls listed are Rasmussen LVs in which the GOP leads by 8.1%. The GOP leads by just 2.3% in the other 135 polls. Apparently RCP believes that Rasmussen is a non-partisan pollster since he is included in the average of “non-partisan affiliated polls”.

In the latest Gallup LV polls, the GOP leads by 53-42 in the high turnout model and 56-39 in the low turnout model. The full 3000-RV sample is not shown. The GOP leads by 47-44. The Democrats lead by 48-35% among the 1100 RV respondents who were not included in the LV cutoff.

Not a single Zogby poll is listed by RCP. The latest Zogby LV shows a 45-45 tie.

Voter Turnout (LVCM)

The majority of registered voters who do not pass the LVCM screen are Democrats.
In 2004 and 2008, the Democratic share of unlikely voters closely matched the share of new voters.

The projected turnout of registered voters is the ratio:
Turnout = LV poll sample / RV poll sample

The Democratic two-party share of unlikely voters is the ratio of unlikely Dem RVs to the sum total of unlikely Dem and GOP RVs.
Dem share = Dem [RV-LV] / (Dem [RV-LV] + GOP [RV-LV])

Pollster Turnout Projections

Pollster Turnout Dem share of unlikely RV
Gallup 67% 58%
AP 63% 58%
FOX 57% 55%
Reuters 84% 56%
ABC /Wash Post 76% 71%

Average 69% 60%

Democratic shares of unlikely registered voters match their New/DNV voter share

Final 2004 pre-election polls indicated that Kerry had a 58% share of unlikely RV. The 12:22am National Exit Poll showed that Kerry had a 57% share of first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2000.

Final 2008 pre-election polls indicated that Obama had a 73% share of unlikely RV. The National Exit Poll indicated that Obama had a 71% share of first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2000.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 22, 2010 in 2010 Midterms, FL, IL, NJ, OH, PA), PA) & Governor (WI


Jonathan Simon on the Likely Voter Cutoff Model

Will any mainstream pollster, and/or polling analyst–like Nate Silver–ever deign to talk about this matter?


From Jonathan Simon:


Stephen Herrington’s examination of the polling sleight-of-hand that occurs when pollsters move to “Likely Voter” samples as elections approach unfortunately misses a key point, perhaps the key point.

The “Likely Voter” samples, which so strongly favor the Republicans relative to the “Registered Voter” samples, are generated by the “Likely Voter Cutoff Model” (LVCM), first instituted several years ago by an extreme right-wing descendant of the reputable and venerable George Gallup.

What LVCM does is exclude (“cut off”) entirely from the sample any respondents who do not pass the seven-question “Likely Voter” test which Herrington reproduces and which is now a polling standard. Thus a whole group of voters who will in fact go to the polls (their aggregate likelihood of voting might be 30% or 50%) are assigned a zero likelihood of voting and dropped from the sample (a methodologically sound poll would weight responses based on respondents’ likelihood of voting, but not arbitrarily assign a zero weight, excluding them entirely). As Herrington notes, these excluded respondents are disproportionately Democratic voters. “Likely Voter” polls therefore substantially oversample Republicans and their results are skewed accordingly.

Here’s the rub: these Likely Voter polls are used and relied upon because, in the era of computerized voting, they keep getting important and competitive elections “right.” How can a poll that relies upon a methodological abomination “work” so well? No one–certainly not pollsters or the MSM–is bothering to ask this disturbing little question. Disturbing because the only rational answer is that the official vote-counts themselves are skewed Republican or “red-shifted.”

Election forensics experts have found the red-shift–rightward shift of vote-counts relative to exit polls, tracking polls, and hand counts–in every biennial election since 2002. What we’re seeing now, however, is that polling is catching up to the red shift. Tracking polls use the LVCM to account for the unexplained but pervasive pattern of competitive contests coming out more Republican than a methodologically sound poll would predict. And both tracking and exit polls are now weighted according to demographics (e.g., party ID) drawn from exit polls “adjusted” rightward to match red-shifted votecounts in prior elections, a further boost to Republicans.

So outcome determinative computerized manipulation of elections to the right now enjoys full cover from distorted tracking polls and exit polls. “Shocking” results are no longer shocking if they’ve been predicted by the polls. The LVCM is a big part of that story, since it adds to the weighting distortion derived from the “adjusted” exit polls of prior elections. It’s all sewn up rather neatly and, unless someone influential begins asking the disturbing little questions immediately, will ensure that election theft continues to determine the direction of America in this bizarre new world of computerized “democracy.”


1 Comment

Posted by on October 18, 2010 in Election Myths, Media


The Invisible Six Point Democratic Lead

An excellent article by Stephen Harrington

The “enthusiasm gap” is driving the midterm election narrative. You hear, everywhere from every MSM and polling source, that the generic ballot shows a 5-10 point lead for the GOP. That lead is constructed entirely on the “likely voter” model. Among likely voters, you hear, the GOP has a 5-10 point lead. Have you ever heard the results of polls of registered voters not qualified by the “likely” modifier?

In the latest CNN public opinion poll released 10/08, someone slipped up and mentioned that, among registered voters, the generic Democrats have a 6 point lead. A 6 point lead is about what it took to sweep Congress and the White House for the Democrats in 2006-08. So the sentiment of the country favors Democrats by 6 percent and the press reports only the pollster construct of right leaning likely voters as representing the sentiment of the nation.

1 Comment

Posted by on October 14, 2010 in Uncategorized


10/11 Zogby Generic LV poll – a 45-45 dead heat

His latest Generic poll of 2072 likely voters has the Democrats and the Republicans tied at 45-45. Now if the undecided voters break to the Dems…

Since 1996, Zogby has had the best track record of any pollster in predicting the True Vote.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 13, 2010 in Uncategorized


An Introduction to the True Vote Model

An Introduction to the True Vote Model

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)

Oct. 10, 2010

The corporate media provides the recorded vote in every election. But the recorded vote is not the same as the True Vote.
In each election, the True Vote is determined by the turnout of prior election voters and current election new voters.

This recursive function applies to all historical and future elections:
True Vote (i) = f (Returning Voters (i-1) + New Voters (i)), where i indicates the current election; i-1 is the prior.

The key number is Votes Cast (voter intent). But the media only provides the recorded vote.

Prior Election Vote (calculated for each party):
Recorded Vote
+ Uncounted Votes
= Votes Cast (Census)
– Voter mortality
= Surviving voters

Current Election Vote:
Surviving Voter Turnout
+ New Voters
= Votes Cast

To calculate the True Vote, we use unadjusted (or Preliminary) National Exit Poll shares of new and returning voters if available.

2004 True Vote Model

110.9 million cast
105.4 million recorded
75% of uncounted votes to Gore
1.25% annual voter mortality

98% returning voter turnout
125.7 million cast
122.3 million recorded
Preliminary 12:22am NEP vote shares (13047 respondents)

Kerry wins the True Vote by 10.5 million (53.5-45.2%)

The Recursive True Vote Model calculates the True Vote for all elections since 1968. Data input consists of recorded and total votes cast, Final National Exit Poll shares (1988-2008); estimated vote shares (1968-1984) required to match the recorded vote, annual voter mortality and previous election voter turnout. The returning voter mix is calculated using the following methods -depending on the objective:

Starting with the 1968 election, the model sequentially derives a feasible returning vote mix. True vote shares cast in the previous election are reduced by voter mortality and turnout in the current election and new voters are added to the mix.

Except for the 2004 election, the model used Final National Exit Poll vote share. In 2004 the Final NEP vote shares were radically changed to match the official tally. Therefore, preliminary 12:22am NEP vote shares were used to calculate the True Vote.

The model indicates that two elections were definitely stolen (2000 and 2004) and probably two others (1968 and 1988) as well. In order to match the official vote, there had to be an average 94% turnout of returning Democrats and 106% of Republicans. The average Republican turnout was 114% when Nixon and Bush were the incumbents; it was 98% otherwise. The average True Vote discrepancy was 10.3% when Nixon and Bush were incumbents; it was 3.6% otherwise.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 10, 2010 in True Vote Models

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis