2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model

2012 Presidential True Vote and Monte Carlo Simulation Forecast Model

Richard Charnin
June 22,2012

The model will be run on a periodic basis up to Election Day.
a) The True Vote Model is based on estimated turnout and vote share assumptions
b) The Simulation model is based on the latest state and national polls.

NOV.5 UPDATE: VIEW FINAL FORECAST HERE

Read this overview of Monte Carlo Simulation and True Vote methodology.

It is important to note that the True Vote is never the same as the recorded vote. In 2008, Obama had 58% in the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate and 58% in the 1988-2008 True Vote Model. But his recorded vote share was just 52.9%. Therefore, assuming the same 5% red-shift differential, Obama needs at least a 55% True Vote share to win the popular vote.

Rasmussen is a GOP pollster who provides a Likely Voter (LV) subset of the total number of Registered Voters (RV). The majority of registered voters excluded by the Likely Voter Cutoff Model are Democrats.

Election Model Projections: 2004-2010

The 2004 Election Model weekly projections started in July and were based on the latest state and national polls. The model was the first to use Monte Carlo Simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. It projected Kerry winning 337 electoral votes with 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted National Exit Poll (51.7%). The election was stolen.

The 2006 House Trend Forecast Model was based on 120 Generic polls. It projected that the Democrats would capture 56.43% of the vote and was virtually identical to the unadjusted National Exit Poll (56.37%). The NEP was forced to match the recorded 52-46% vote share. The landslide was denied. Election fraud cost the Democrats 15-20 House seats.

The 2008 Election Model projection was published weekly. The final projection exactly matched Obama’s 365 electoral votes and was within 0.2% of his 52.9% share (a 9.5 million margin). But the model understated his True Vote. The forecast was based on likely voter (LV) polls that had Obama leading by 7%. Registered voter (RV) polls had him up by 13% – before undecided voter allocation. The True Vote Model determined that Obama won by over 22 million votes with 420 EV. His 58% share was within 0.1% of the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate (83,000 respondents). The landslide was denied.

The 2010 Election Forecast Model predicted a 234-201 GOP House based on the final 30 likely voter (LV) Generic polls (the GOP led by 48.7-41.9%). It predicted a 221-214 GOP House based on the final 19 registered voter (RV) polls (the GOP led by 45.1-44.4%). The Final National Exit Poll was a near match to the LV pre-election poll average. The Democratic margin was 6.1% higher in the RV polls than the LVs.

The model predicted a 50-48 Democratic Senate based on 37 LV polls in which the GOP led by 48.1-43.5%. It predicted a 53-45 Democratic margin based on a combination of 18 RV and 19 LV polls in which they led by 45.2-44.6%, a 5.2% increase in margin.

There were no RV polls in the realclearpolitics.com final polling averages. CNN/Time provided RV and LV polling data for 18 Senate races. The Democrats led the RV polls in 11 states (49.2-40.6%) and the LV subset in 8 (46.6-45.8%), an 8% difference in margin.

Take the Election Fraud Quiz.

Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot)
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote 55.2%, 380 EV