|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform |
tiptoe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-10-10 12:50 AM Original message |
10/8 Richard Charnin Midterms Forecast Model: Rasmssn LV(45R-42D);Gallup new LV;GOP 12% Sen win prob |
Edited on Sun Oct-10-10 01:29 AM by tiptoe
2010 Midterm House & Senate Forecast Model:RV/LV Polls, Undecided Voters & Election Fraud bit.ly/aurqKJ Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll) source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionForecastModels.htm October 8, 2010 The House and Senate forecast models provide comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls. The assumption is that the election is held today. Pre-election polls interview registered voters; likely voter polls are a sub-sample based on a likely voter cutoff model (LVCM). They are not separate polls. The Senate model employs simulation analysis of the latest RV and LV polls to forecast average GOP net gains, associated win probabilities and trends. The built-in sensitivity analysis displays the effects of various undecided voter allocation and vote-switching scenarios. The House model provides a summary comparison of the latest RV and LV Generic polls, win probabilities and a moving average projection. As in the Senate model, the sensitivity analyses display the effect of various undecided voter and vote-switching assumptions on forecast vote shares, House seats and win probabilities. The 2010 summary table illustrates the wide difference between Rasmussen and other pollsters. The 2006-2010 Generic Poll table provides a historical context. Democrats always do better in the full RV sample than in the LV sub-sample (see the LVCM model below). LV polls exclude millions of registered voters who actually vote — and most of them are Democrats. In addition, millions of votes are cast but never counted in every election — and most of them are Democratic as well. The good news is that proliferation of electronic voting has reduced the uncounted vote rate. The bad news is that votes can be switched, stuffed or dropped at the voting machine and/or the central tabulator where they are counted. Polling websites generally display only LV polls. CNN/Time provides both RV and LV samples, but only the LVs are listed at realclearpolitics.com. The Senate RV forecast model is therefore a mix of RV and LV polls. Without a full corresponding RV poll for every LV sample, a comparable analysis is difficult. Unlike the Senate, House Generic polls have been primarily RV samples (except for Rasmussen, which only provides LV sub-samples). But the ratio will shift to virtually all LVs as Election Day approaches. Latest Polling Analysis Gallup The GOP leads the full 3000 RV sample by 46-43% The GOP leads the 1883 LV sub-sample by 53-40%. Therefore, 1118 RV respondents did not pass the Gallup LVCM. The Democrats lead this "unlikely to vote" group by 48-35%. Rasmussen The GOP leads the LV sub-sample by 45-42%. They led in the prior poll by 46-40%. Rasmussen does not provide RV poll results. Senate Models RV & LV (15 RV and 22 LV polls) (Table 1) The RV polls are from CNN/Time. The Democrats have a 52.7-45.3 simulated seat margin (100% win probability). The Democrats lead the 37-poll weighted average by 45.3-44.3%. LV (37 LV polls) Most polls are from Rasmussen. The Democrats have a 49.6-48.4 simulated seat margin (88% win probability). The GOP leads the LV poll weighted average by 47.2-43.4%. Each 1% incremental vote-switch to the GOP gives them 2 additional seats (Table 5). RV (15) vs. LV (15) sub-sample (Table 1a) The Democrats lead the RV poll unweighted average by 48.7-40.8% and the LV sub-sample by 46.5-45.3%. The Democrats win 10-12 of the 15 races (2 are tied) in the full RV sample and 7 in the LV sub-sample. The Democrats win 8 seats, if 50% of the registered voters excluded in the LV sub-sample are included. House Models Latest 13 RV polls (Table 6) The GOP leads the average RV poll by 45.7-43.8%. The GOP has a 224-211 seat margin (74% win probability). Latest 15 LV polls The GOP leads the average by LV poll 47.4-40.3%. The GOP wins control by a 235-200 projected seat margin (99% win probability). Each 1% incremental vote-switch to the GOP gives them 4 additional seats (Table 7). 2010 Generic polls (Table 9) The GOP leads the 116 non-Rasmussen poll average by 45.0-43.2% with a projected 223-212 majority and 69% win probability. The GOP leads the 38 Rasmussen poll average by 45.2-37.1% with a projected 237-198 majority and 99.6% win probability. October 8 House and Senate Forecast Summary Average Poll Share Dem Projected Share (%) Simulated Seat Proj WinProb Senate Weighted Average RV (14) & LV (23) LV only Diff Unweighted Average RV sample LV sub-sample Diff House Latest Generic Polls RV LV Diff Total 2010 Generic Polls Non-Rasmussen Rasmussen (LV) Diff Total Polls 37 37 - 15 15 - 13 15 - 28 116 38 - 154 Dem % 45.3 43.4 1.8 48.7 46.5 2.3 43.8 40.3 3.4 41.9 43.2 37.1 6.1 41.7 GOP % 44.3 47.2 (2.9) 40.8 45.3 (4.5) 45.7 47.4 (1.7) 46.6 45.0 45.2 (0.2) 45.3 Dem % 50.5 48.1 2.4 54.0 50.6 3.4 49.0 46.5 2.6 47.7 49.1 45.9 3.2 48.2 GOP % 49.5 51.9 (2.4) 46.0 49.4 (3.4) 51.0 53.5 -2.6 52.3 50.9 54.1 (3.2) 51.8 Dem 52.4 49.5 3.0 10 7 3.0 211 200 11 205 212 198 14 208 GOP 45.6 48.5 (3.0) 3 8 (5.0) 224 235 (11) 230 223 237 (14) 227 GOP 0% 12% - - - - 74% 99% - 94% 69% 99.6% - 88% Pollsters Are Paid To Predict the Recorded Vote - Not the True Vote The media/pollster drumbeat of a “horse race” is largely based on LV polls. The narrative conditions the public to expect a recorded vote which in fact understates the True Democratic share. The pollsters discount the RV sample for a fraud component, fully expecting that the LV projections will be a close match to the recorded vote — but they never mention the F-word. They know that votes are miscounted in every election. And so their final LV-based polling forecasts are usually quite accurate. Pollsters are paid to predict the recorded vote—not the True Vote. As Election Day approaches, the MSM gradually phases out RV polls for LVs which lowball the projected Democratic vote share. And so the general public is prepared for the fraudulent recorded vote-counts that the MSM always knows are coming. Since 2000, LV poll projections have closely matched recorded vote-count shares, while RV poll projections closely matched unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls. In each election, the final exit polls were "forced" to match the recorded vote-count. . In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Poll required impossible returning Bush voter turnout in order to match the recorded vote. Since pre-election LV poll predictions also matched the recorded vote, what can we conclude? The media cites low Democratic enthusiasm in the 2010 midterms, but turnout will exceed the LV sub-sample. Unfortunately, most pollsters won’t provide RV samples in the two weeks prior to the election. The media will gush on how close the final LV predictions came to the vote but ignore the real reason:systemic election fraud. The Fraud Component In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls underestimated voter turnout and yet closely matched impossible final exit polls and fraudulent recorded vote counts. Projections based on final pre-election RV polls (adjusted for undecided voters) were a close match to the unadjusted preliminary exit polls and the True Vote. Pre-election Model: Recorded vote share = LV poll projection = RV poll projection + Fraud component Post-election Model: Recorded vote share = Final Exit Poll = Unadjusted Preliminary Exit Poll + Fraud component Senate: Projected GOP LV (Recorded) Vote Share: LV Poll Projection = 49.4 = 46 + Fraud component Fraud component = 3.4%. Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud): Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 2 seats (Table 5). Projected GOP House Vote Share: Share = 53.53 = 50.96 + Fraud component Fraud component = 2.57% Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud): Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 4 seats (Table 7). The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM) In 2004, there were 22 million voters who did not vote in 2000. Nearly 60% of newly registered voters were Democrats for Kerry. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic tsunami gave them control of both houses. In 2008, there were approximately 15 million new voters, of whom 70% voted for Obama. All pre-election polls interview registered voters. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the full Registered Voter (RV) sample. LV polls exclude most "new" registered voters–first-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election. Most pollsters use the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM), a series of questions regarding past voting history, residential transience, intent to vote, etc. Since students, transients, low-income voters, immigrant new voters, etc. are much more likely to give "No" answers than established, wealthier, non-transient voters, Republicans are more likely to exceed the cutoff than Democrats. A respondent who indicates “yes” to four out of seven questions might be down-weighted to 50% compared to one who answers “yes” to all seven. bit.ly/a8UYRb The LVCM assigns a weight of zero to all respondents falling below the cutoff, eliminating them from the sample. But these potential voters have more than a zero probability of voting. The number of "Yes" answers required to qualify as a likely voter is set based on how the pollster wants the sample to turn out. The more Republicans the pollster wants in the sample, the more "Yes" answers are required. This serves to eliminate many Democrats and skews the sample to the GOP. Undecided Voters, Turnout and Election Fraud In 1988, 11 million votes were uncounted; in 2000, 6 million; in 2004, 4 million; in 2006, 3 million. In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote count shares. Projections based on the final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. Undecided voters typically break heavily for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challengers, but many pollsters did not allocate accordingly. Democratic voter turnout was underestimated by the pre-election LV polls (see 2004 Final Pre-election Polls). bit.ly/d2yEQh bit.ly/claROe bit.ly/aW4gYX Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote count, (i.e. the final pre-election LV polls). The underlying assumption is that the recorded vote count is correct (i.e. zero fraud). In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Polls required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (110% and 103%, respectively). In the 2004 Final NEP (13660 respondents), the Bush vote shares were increased dramatically over the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (1% MoE, 13047 respondents). For 2008, the NEP media consortium of news outlets FOX, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC has suppressed results of fifty-one unadjusted-state and three un-forced preliminary-national exit polls. bit.ly/bAc6OK bit.ly/amsJiB bit.ly/bRhlz4 bit.ly/diYEJ5 bit.ly/a2j7xl bit.ly/bsL7lk bit.ly/dfIPTI Once again, as in every election cycle, the media avoids the real issues. Martha Coakley won the hand-counts in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s seat but lost to Scott Brown; Vic Rawl won the absentee vote but lost to unknown Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary; Mike Castle won the absentee ballots but lost to Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware GOP Senate primary. But there has not been a peep about any of this in the mainstream media. Apparently, we must just accept the conventional wisdom that even though the votes have vanished in cyberspace and can never be verified, they were not tampered with. The media lockdown is not limited to past stolen elections. The MSM prepares us for election fraud by listing final pre-election LV polls and ignoring RV polls. Table 1 2010 Midterms:Senate and House Forecast Model Senate Forecast Simulation Summary http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/senate bit.ly/azDXlw 08-Oct Simulation Forecast¹ Expected Senate Seats Poll Type RV&LV Net Gain Win Prob² OnlyLV Net Gain Win Prob² Count 37 37 Dem 52.7 - 100.0% 49.6 - 88.0% GOP 45.3 4.3 0.0% 48.4 7.4 12.0% Ind 2 2 Weighted Avg RV&LV OnlyLV Unwtd Avg RV LV 37 37 15 15 Poll Share Projection Dem 45.3% 43.4% 48.7% 46.5% GOP 44.3% 47.2% 40.8% 45.3% Dem 50.5% 48.1% 54.0% 50.6% GOP 49.5% 51.9% 46.0% 49.4% ASSUMPTIONS Fraud MoE UVA Base Case 0.0% 4.0% 50.0% Seats Current Dem 57 GOP 41 Ind 2 Projection (table) Seats RV&LV LV RV&LV Flip to Lean Safe Tossup Dem 54 49 1 1 10 6 GOP 44 49 4 3 17 0 NOTES: ¹ Average of a 200 election trial simulation ² Probability of winning a 50 senate seat majority 08-Oct *tossup Poll Type Poll Share % Dem % Projection Share (%) GOP Within AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MD MO NC ND NH NV NY1 NY2 OH OK OR PA SC SD UT WA VT WI WV 37 37 Held By R R D R D D* D D R R D R R D* D R R* R D R R D R D D D R R D D* R R R D D D* D* RV&LV OnlyLV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV RV Dem 45.3 43.4 22 30 39 37 56 47 56 59 31 34 68 37 27 42 34 24 46 33 54 39 36 25 40 43 60 67 42 24 54 45 30 30 25 50 64 48 46 GOP 44.3 47.2 38 59 53 51 37 44 37 34 38 52 20 55 64 38 50 66 46 54 38 50 49 69 48 32 33 39 49 67 37 45 70 70 52 44 29 46 48 Margin 1.0 (3.8) (16) (29) (14) (14) 19 3 19 25 (7) (18) 48 (18) (37) 4 (16) (42) 0 (21) 16 (11) (13) (44) (8) 11 27 28 (7) (43) 17 0 (40) (40) (27) 6 35 2 (2) Dem 50.5 48.1 42.0 35.5 43.0 43.0 59.5 51.5 59.5 62.5 46.5 41.0 74.0 41.0 31.5 52.0 42.0 29.0 50.0 39.5 58.0 44.5 43.5 28.0 46.0 55.5 63.5 64.0 46.5 28.5 58.5 50.0 30.0 30.0 36.5 53.0 67.5 51.0 49.0 GOP 49.5 51.9 58.0 64.5 57.0 57.0 40.5 48.5 40.5 37.5 53.5 59.0 26.0 59.0 68.5 48.0 58.0 71.0 50.0 60.5 42.0 55.5 56.5 72.0 54.0 44.5 36.5 36.0 53.5 71.5 41.5 50.0 70.0 70.0 63.5 47.0 32.5 49.0 51.0 Win Prob² 0.0% 12.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 23% 0% 0% 96% 100% 0% 100% 100% 16% 100% 100% 50% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 98% 0% 0% 0% 96% 100% 0% 50% 100% 100% 100% 7% 0% 31% 69% Flip 5 GOP GOP Dem GOP GOP MoE 10 CO FL IL KY NH OH PA WA WI WV Table 1a Registered vs Likely Voters Pollster RV/LV CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) CNN/TIME (RV & LV) 15 Polls Average Win CA CO CT DE FL IL KY MO NV NY1 NY2 OH PA WA WI RV Full Sample Dem 48.73 10 56 47 56 59 31 42 46 39 43 60 67 42 45 50 48 Rep 40.80 3 37 44 37 34 38 38 46 50 32 33 39 49 45 44 46 Margin 7.93 7 19 3 19 25 (7) 4 0 (11) 11 27 28 (7) 0 6 2 LV subsample Dem 46.47 7 52 44 54 55 31 43 42 40 40 55 57 42 44 53 45 Rep 45.33 8 43 49 44 39 42 42 49 53 42 41 41 51 49 44 51 Margin 1.13 (1) 9 (5) 10 16 (11) 1 (7) (13) (2) 14 16 (9) (5) 9 (6) 50% of RV-LV Dem 47.60 8 54.0 45.5 55.0 57.0 31.0 42.5 44.0 39.5 41.5 57.5 62.0 42.0 44.5 51.5 46.5 Rep 43.07 7 40.0 46.5 40.5 36.5 40.0 40.0 47.5 51.5 37.0 37.0 40.0 50.0 47.0 44.0 48.5 Margin 4.53 1 14.0 (1.0) 14.5 20.5 (9.0) 2.5 (3.5) (12.0) 4.5 20.5 22.0 (8.0) (2.5) 7.5 (2.0) Table 1b Sensitivity Analysis: RV vs. LV Polls Effect of LV-excluded RV Turnout and Vote Switch on Democratic Seats Table 2 Probability Distribution of GOP Net Gains (refer to source) Table 3 Projection Trend (refer to source) Table 4 GOP Senate Seat Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Poll Type (refer to source) Table 5 GOP Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection (zero fraud) RV&LV RV/LV – Undecided Vote Allocation to GOP 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 3 Vote Switch to GOP 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 3 4 6 7 8 3 5 7 7 9 3 5 7 8 9 5 6 8 9 9 5 8 8 9 10 44 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 44 45 47 48 49 44 46 48 48 50 44 46 48 49 50 46 47 49 50 50 46 49 49 50 51 Table 6 House Generic Ballot Forecasting Model http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html#polls PROJECTION UVA 50% 50% CURRENT SEATS 178 255 Latest POLL AVERAGE PROJECTED 2-PARTY % Projected Seats 3% MoE GOP Model LV RV Total 2010 LV RV A Total Polls 15 13 28 Polls 63 88 3 154 GOP 47.4 45.7 46.6 GOP 45.7 45.2 40.0 45.3 Dem 40.3 43.8 41.9 Dem 38.8 43.7 43.3 41.7 GOP 53.5 51.0 52.3 GOP 53.4 50.7 48.3 51.8 Dem 46.5 49.0 47.7 Dem 46.6 49.3 51.7 48.2 GOP 235 224 230 GOP 234 223 212 227 Dem 200 211 205 Dem 201 212 223 208 WinProb 99% 74% 94% WinProb 99% 69% 14% 88% Table 7 Sensitivity Analysis, GOP House Forecast: # of GOP House Seats Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection Base case assumptions: 50% UVA to GOP Zero Vote-switch % to GOP Projections Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 224 Sensitivity Analysis, GOP House Forecast: Probability of GOP winning a House Majority Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection Base case assumptions: 50% UVA to GOP Zero Vote-switch % to GOP (refer to source) Table 8 Latest Generic Polls PROJECTION UVA 50% 50% POLL PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE GOP GOP 10-POLL MOVING AVERAGE GOP GOP Pollster CBS News/NY Times Democracy Corps (D) ABC News/Wash Post Rasmussen Reports Gallup Gallup Newsweek FOX News Gallup Rasmussen Reports CNN/Opinion Research Politico/GWU/Battleground Reuters/Ipsos Gallup (source for more) Date 10/1- 10/5 10/2 - 10/4 9/30 - 10/3 9/27 - 10/3 9/27 - 10/3 9/27 - 10/3 9/29 - 9/30 9/28 - 9/29 9/20 - 9/26 9/20 - 9/26 9/21 - 9/23 9/19 - 9/22 9/16 - 9/19 9/13 - 9/19 ... Sample na 867 669 3500 1882 3000 902 900 3000 3500 506 1000 953 2925 ... Type LV LV LV LV LV RV RV RV RV LV LV LV RV RV ... GOP 45 49 49 45 53 46 43 44 46 46 53 47 45 45 ... Dem 37 43 43 42 40 43 48 39 46 40 44 42 46 46 ... Spread 8 6 6 3 13 3 (5) 5 0 6 9 5 (1) (1) ... GOP 54.0 53.0 53.0 51.5 56.5 51.5 47.5 52.5 50.0 53.0 54.5 52.5 49.5 49.5 ... Dem 46.0 47.0 47.0 48.5 43.5 48.5 52.5 47.5 50.0 47.0 45.5 47.5 50.5 50.5 ... Margin 8.0 6.0 6.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 (5.0) 5.0 0.0 6.0 9.0 5.0 (1.0) (1.0) ... Seats 237 232 232 226 248 226 208 230 219 232 239 230 217 217 ... WinProb 100% 98% 98% 84% 100% 84% 5% 95% 50% 98% 100% 95% 37% 37% ... GOP 52.25 52.30 52.25 51.68 52.00 51.68 51.70 52.20 52.05 52.15 52.35 51.85 51.60 51.90 ... Dem 47.75 47.70 47.75 48.32 48.00 48.32 48.30 47.80 47.95 47.85 47.65 48.15 48.40 48.10 ... Margin 4.5 4.6 4.5 3.4 4.0 3.4 3.4 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.7 3.7 3.2 3.8 ... Seats 229 229 229 227 228 227 227 229 228 229 230 227 226 228 ... Pollster Averages POLL AVERAGE GOP PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE GOP GOP Polling Firm Rasmussen Reports Gallup FOX News CNN/Opinion Research PPP (D) Democracy Corps (D) ABC News/Wash Post Ipsos/McClatchy Quinnipiac Pew Research USA Today/Gallup Newsweek Reuters/Ipsos GWU/Battleground Time McLaughlin & Associates (R) Associated Press/GfK POS (R) Bloomberg National Journal/FD Washington Post NPR McClatchy/Marist CBS News/NY Times Non-Rasmussen Count 38 33 13 9 8 8 6 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 116 Sample 3500 1508 900 892 784 869 na 913 1977 na 970 889 917 1000 915 1000 445 850 875 1200 na 800 815 na 997 MoE 1.7% 2.5% 3.3% 3.3% 3.5% 3.3% 3.0% 3.2% 2.2% 3.0% 3.1% 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 3.2% 3.1% 4.6% 3.4% 3.3% 2.8% 3.0% 3.5% 3.4% 3.0% 3.0% GOP 45.2 46.5 42.9 48.9 39.3 46.4 47.7 43.5 41.3 43.8 46.0 43.7 45.7 43.7 42.5 42.0 51.0 43.5 48.0 35.0 44.0 44.0 47.0 42.5 45.0 Dem 37.1 44.9 38.7 45.3 42.5 44.0 44.7 44.8 39.0 45.3 45.3 46.0 45.0 41.7 40.0 36.0 44.0 40.5 40.0 39.0 48.0 39.0 45.0 37.5 43.2 Spread 8.1 1.6 4.2 3.6 (3.2) 2.4 3.0 (1.3) 2.3 (1.5) 0.7 (2.3) 0.7 2.0 2.5 6.0 7.0 3.0 8.0 (4.0) (4.0) 5.0 2.0 5.0 1.8 GOP 54.1 50.8 52.1 51.8 48.4 51.2 51.5 49.4 51.1 49.3 50.3 48.8 50.3 51.0 51.3 53.0 53.5 51.5 54.0 48.0 48.0 52.5 51.0 52.5 50.9 Dem 45.9 49.2 47.9 48.2 51.6 48.8 48.5 50.6 48.9 50.8 49.7 51.2 49.7 49.0 48.8 47.0 46.5 48.5 46.0 52.0 52.0 47.5 49.0 47.5 49.1 Margin 8.1 1.6 4.2 3.6 (3.2) 2.4 3.0 (1.3) 2.3 (1.5) 0.7 (2.3) 0.7 2.0 2.5 6.0 7.0 3.0 8.0 (4.0) (4.0) 5.0 2.0 5.0 1.8 Seats 237 223 229 227 212 225 226 217 224 216 221 214 221 224 225 232 235 226 237 211 211 230 224 230 223 WinProb 100% 70% 92% 88% 15% 78% 84% 34% 77% 31% 59% 22% 59% 74% 79% 98% 99% 84% 100% 10% 10% 95% 74% 95% 69% Table 10 2006-2010 Registered and Likely Voter Poll Summary (refer to source) If you believe that Kerry won in 2004 and that landslides were denied in 2006 and 2008, then you must also believe that the ... If you believe that Bush won fairly in 2004 and the Democratic landslides of 2006 and 2008 were not denied, then you must believe that the ... |
Refresh | +1 Recommendations | Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top |
aquart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-10-10 04:13 AM Response to Original message |
1. They stole our elections, our money, our future. |
We haven't punished one of them. But we did get rid of ACORN.
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top |
Peace Patriot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Oct-10-10 10:17 AM Response to Original message |
2. K&R! Let's have a REAL "Tea Party"! Throw ES&S/Diebold election theft machines into |
'Boston Harbor' (so to speak) and count every vote in PUBLIC view once again!
Otherwise the Jabberwocky Party wins. :patriot: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu Jan 02nd 2025, 08:04 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC