RSS

Reuters Trump Approval: from 42% to 47% in one week. Why? Do the math.

Richard Charnin
Sept.23, 2018

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

Reuters/Ipsos Trump Approval was 42.5% on 9/13/18.
1) Democrat Party ID was over-weighted at 40%
2) Republican Trump approval was understated at 84%
3) Independent Trump approval was understated at 38%

On 9/20/18 Reuters has 47% Trump approval. Why the jump?
1) Democratic Party ID is 27% based on the Gallup Survey.
2) Independent Party ID is 45%.
3) Republican Trump approval is a reasonable 90%
4) Independent Trump approval is 43%

Rasmussen has Trump at 49%.

 

Trump approval
Reuters 9/13 Party ID Approval Adjusted1 Rasmussen1
Rep 35.0% 84.0% 90.0% 91.0%
Dem 40.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
Ind/Other 25.0% 38.0% 43.0% 47.0%
Total 100.0% 42.5% 45.9% 47.2%
Reuters 9/20 Gallup Party ID Approval Adjusted2 Rasmussen2
Rep 28.0% 84.0% 90.0% 91.0%
Dem 27.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
Ind/Other 45.0% 38.0% 43.0% 47.0%
Total 100.0% 43.1% 47.0% 49.1%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html#polls
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 23, 2018 in 2018 Elections

 

Florida Governor Pre-election Polls

Richard Charnin
Sept. 14, 2018

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, Gillum leads DeSantis by 3%. DeSantis has just 52% of whites (implausible), 2% of blacks (implausible) and 56% of Latinos/others. Let’s recalculate using plausible vote shares.

Rasmussen has Gillum ahead by 48-42%. DeSantis has just 29% of Independents and 46% of whites?

But first consider the 2016 FL presidential election. According to the FL exit poll, Trump had 64% of whites, 8% of blacks and 35% of Latinos. He had 89% of Republicans, 8% of Democrats and 47% of Independents.

Florida Exit Poll (match to recorded vote)

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/florida/president

Party ID Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 32% 90% 8% 0% 1%
Rep 33% 8% 89% 3% 0%
Ind/oth 34% 43% 47% 3% 1%
Match 99% 46.1% 47.9% 2.0% 0.7%
Reported 47.8% 49.0% 2.2% 0.7%
Votes 9,420 4,505 4,618 207 64

 

Race Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 62% 32% 64% 4%
Black 14% 84% 8% 8%
Latino 18% 62% 35% 3%
Asian 2% 58% 36% 6%
Other 4% 58% 36% 6%
Calc 100.0% 46.2% 49.3% 4.5%

Quinnipiac- 2018 Fl Gov

https://poll.qu.edu/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=2565

FLORIDA Quinnipiac What If
PartyID Pct DeSantis Gillum DeSantis Gillum
Dem 31% 3% 93% 6% 93%
Rep 35% 92% 6% 92% 6%
Ind/Other 34% 42% 55% 47% 48%
Total 100% 47.4% 49.6% 50.0% 47.3%
What If
Race Pct DeSantis Gillum DeSantis Gillum
White 67% 52% 45% 58% 39%
Black 14% 2% 93% 6% 93%
Lat/oth 19% 56% 43% 56% 43%
Total 100% 45.8% 51.3% 50.3% 47.3%

Rasmussen

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2018/crosstabs_toplines/public_crosstabs_election_2018_florida_governor_september_10_11_2018

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2018/florida/election_2018_florida_governor

Rasmussen What if
PartyID Pct DeSantis Gillum DeSantis Gillum
Dem 31% 14% 82% 10% 90%
Rep 35% 80% 13% 90% 10%
Ind/Other 34% 29% 54% 47% 53%
Total 100% 42.2% 48.3% 50.6% 49.4%
What if
Race Pct DeSantis Gillum DeSantis Gillum
White 67% 46% 45% 55% 45%
Black 14% 24% 75% 20% 80%
Lat/oth 19% 48% 37% 55% 45%
Total 100% 43.3% 47.7% 50.1% 49.9%

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 14, 2018 in 2018 Elections

 

Tags: , ,

Why Trump has a higher approval rating than the MSM polls

Richard Charnin

Updated Sept.22, 2018:  RCP average 42.2%; Rasmussen 49%; Reuters 47%

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Why the discrepancy with Rasmussen?
1) Dems Party ID overweighted
2) Trump’s estimated true approval (90% Repub, 43% Independent) reduced to 78-84% and 35-38%.

Calculate adjusted Trump approval based on

1) PollID = pollster Party ID*pollster approval
2) Adj1 = pollster Party ID*adjusted approval
3) GallupID = Gallup Party ID*pollster approval
4) Adj2 = Gallup PartyID*adjusted approval

– Gallup national  Party-ID (28R-27D-45I)
– Trump’s Repub (90%) and Ind approval (43%)

 

Trump
Reuters/Ipsos Approval Party ID Approval Adjusted1
Rep 35.0% 84.0% 90.0%
Dem 40.0% 9.0% 9.0%
Ind/Other 25.0% 38.0% 43.0%
Total 100.0% 42.5% 45.9%
Actual 43.0%
Reuters
Gallup/adjusted Gallup ID Approval Adjusted2
Rep 28.0% 84.0% 90.0%
Dem 27.0% 9.0% 9.0%
Ind/Other 45.0% 38.0% 43.0%
Total 100.0% 43.1% 47.0%
Washington Post Party ID Approval Adjusted1
Rep 25% 78% 90%
Dem 33% 6% 6%
Ind/Other 37% 35% 43%
Total 95% 34.4% 40.4%
Actual 38%
Gallup/adjusted Gallup ID Approval Adjusted2
Rep 28% 78% 90%
Dem 27% 6% 6%
Ind/Other 45% 35% 43%
Total 100% 39.2% 46.17%
Actual 40%
CNN Party ID Approval Adjusted1
Rep 25% 83% 90%
Dem 31% 6% 6%
Ind/Other 44% 29% 43%
Total 100% 35.4% 43.3%
Actual 37%
Gallup/adjusted Gallup ID Approval Adjusted2
Rep 28% 83% 90%
Dem 27% 6% 6%
Ind/Other 45% 29% 43%
Total 100% 37.9% 46.17%
Quinnipiac Party ID Approval Adjusted1
Rep 25% 84% 90%
Dem 34% 4% 4%
Ind/Other 41% 36% 43%
Total 100% 37.1% 41.5%
Actual 38%
Gallup/adjusted Gallup ID Approval Adjusted2
Rep 28% 84% 90%
Dem 27% 4% 4%
Ind/Other 45% 36% 43%
Total 100% 40.8% 45.63%

 

Total Actual Poll PartyID Adjusted1 Gallup PartyID Adjusted2
Reuters 42.0% 42.5% 45.9% 43.1% 47.0%
WaPo 38.0% 34.4% 40.4% 39.2% 46.2%
CNN 37.0% 35.4% 43.3% 37.9% 46.2%
Quinnipiac 38.0% 37.1% 41.5% 40.8% 45.6%
AVG 38.8% 37.4% 42.8% 40.2% 46.2%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 9, 2018 in 2018 Elections

 

Sharyl Attkisson: Collusion against Trump timeline

Richard Charnin
Aug. 20, 2018

A great resource from Sharyl Attkisson: Collusion against Trump timeline

“On the other side, evidence has emerged in the past year that makes it clear there were organized efforts to collude against candidate Donald Trump–and then President Trump. For example:

– Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.

– A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material–in part–to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.

– There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press, including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.

– The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and politially-motivated “unmaskings” of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.

– Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump’s alleged Russia ties.

But it’s not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these events.

Here’s a work in progress”.

https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/07/26/collusion-against-trump-timeline/

………………

Also from Sharyl Attkisson: 55 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era

We the media have “fact-checked” President Trump like we have fact-checked no other human being on the planet—and he’s certainly given us plenty to write about. That’s probably why it’s so easy to find lists enumerating and examining his mistakes, missteps and “lies.”

But as self-appointed arbiters of truth, we’ve largely excused our own unprecedented string of fact-challenged reporting. The truth is, formerly well-respected, top news organizations are making repeat, unforced errors in numbers that were unheard of just a couple of years ago.

Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump’s claims are “lies” when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump’s statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they’re established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories—without labeling them as opinions.

What’s worse, we defend ourselves by trying to convince the public that our mistakes are actually a virtue because we (sometimes) correct them. Or we blame Trump for why we’re getting so much wrong. It’s a little bit like a police officer taking someone to jail for DUI, then driving home drunk himself: he may be correct to arrest the suspect, but he should certainly know better than to commit the same violation.

So since nobody else has compiled an updated, extensive list of this kind, here are:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2018/07/11/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 20, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Rasmussen vs. WaPo: Trump Approval

Richard Charnin
Updated: Aug.31, 2018

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

According to Rasmussen’s Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, Trump has a 48% total approval rating. Among black voters, he has 34% approval.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

The Washington Post tried to refute Rasmussen’s results with an article entitled “No, one-third of African Americans don’t support Trump. Not even close”.

The  Post needs to take an algebra class. WaPo says Trump total approval is 36% with 3% black approval. This is mathematically impossible, counter-intuitive and an insult to the intelligence of any rational reader.  

Once again, WaPo bias is showing. Given Rasmussen’s 48% total Trump approval, then 34% of blacks approve and 50% of non-blacks approve. Here is the proof based on the 88% non-black/12% black split of the electorate.
Given: Trump Approval =.48 (total)
Blacks = 12% of the electorate (34% Trump approval)
Let X = total non-black approval
.48= .88*X+.12*34
X=(.48-.12*.34)/.88
X= 0.50 non-black approval

Proof: If Trump has 3% black approval, then he must have 40% total approval (45% non-black approval) given the 88/12% split.
Total approval = non-black approval + black approval = .40 =0.88*0.45+0.12*0.03

The Harris-Harvard Poll shows that Trump has 45% total approval.
https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/news/caps-harris-poll-foreign-policy-and-supreme-court

WaPo Trump approval shenanigans: Party-ID
Once again, they over-sample Democrats. But they also inflate the poll shares. In this conservative analysis the Gallup poll shares are set equal to WaPo:
Trump approval Calculations: WaPo 34.4%, Gallup 38.5%

WaPo
……ID% Trump Approval
Repub 25 78
Indep 37 35
Dem.. 33 6
Total 95 34.4
Gallup
……ID% Trump Approval
Repub 28 78
Indep 43 35
Dem.. 27 6
Total 98 38.5

Sensitivity- Adjust shares of Republicans and Independents
Gallup

……ID% Trump Approval
Repub 28 90
Indep 43 43
Dem 27 6
Total 98 45.31

https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2018/08/31/National-Politics/Polling/question_20686.xml?uuid=UnUesq0MEeiafc0wUE_5Ag
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

According to the National Exit Poll, Trump had 8% of the recorded black vote. But he did much better than that since the NEP, as always, was forced to match a bogus recorded vote inflated for Clinton. Trump’s approval among blacks has risen sharply since the election (black unemployment is at an all-time low).

Trump
 Non-black
Approval
Black 0.440 0.460 0.480 0.500
Approval Trump
Total
Approval
0.40 0.435 0.453 0.470 0.488
0.38 0.433 0.450 0.468 0.486
0.36 0.430 0.448 0.466 0.483
0.34 0.428 0.446 0.463 0.481
0.03 0.391 0.408 0.426 0.444

How does Trump’s approval among blacks translate to the popular vote?

Assume
1) 2016 National Exit poll white, latino, asian recorded vote shares. Note: Trump’s true shares were likely understated to force a match to the bogus recorded vote.
2) 2016 Census Race percentage breakdown
3) Trump’s vote share among blacks is equal to 36%.

Trump wins by 9 million votes.

National Exit Poll (adjusted to match recorded vote)
Race Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 71% 37% 57% 6%
Black 12% 89% 8% 3%
Latin 11% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 4% 65% 27% 8%
Other 2% 56% 36% 8%
Total 100% 47.93% 46.31% 5.76%

NEP/RACE
Census Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 73.30% 36.7% 56.8% 6.5%
Black 12.45% 61% 36% 3%
Latin 9.22% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 3.67% 65% 27% 8%
Other 1.36% 56% 36% 8%
Total 138.2 60.42 69.39 8.41
Share 100% 43.71% 50.20% 6.08%

https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1200a1TrumpandtheMuellerInvestigation.pdf https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1672204415

Census Table 4b. Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2016
2016 Presidential Election Model

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 16, 2018 in 2018 Elections

 

Tags: , , , ,

2016: Were Clinton’s pre-election poll numbers (and recorded vote) inflated?

Richard Charnin
Aug.3, 2018

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

Clinton’s average pre-election 10-poll approval rating (41.8%) was exceeded by her 47.6% average poll and 48.3% recorded vote. Did Clinton’s average pre-election approval rating closely approximate her true vote? Were her poll numbers inflated?

In the post-election True Vote Model, Trump won by an estimated 50.5-43.4% (9.7 million votes).

In 16 battleground states, Trump won the recorded vote by 48.0-45.9%. Clinton led the pre-election polls by 44.5-44.1%. When undecided voters are allocated (UVA), Trump leads the 16-poll average 46.6-45.3%. Using the Gallup National Voter affiliation survey (40Ind-32Dem-28Rep) to derive each state’s Party-ID, Trump leads 48.9-43.1%.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/09/15/2016-pre-election-polls-in-16-battleground-states-were-biased-for-clinton

Clinton Pre-election Approval/Poll
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=34911100

Clinton Average 41.8 47.6
Pollster Date Approval Poll
CBS News/NY Times 1030 35 47
McClatchy/Marist 1101 40 47
ABC/Wash Post 1102 42 49
Reuters/Ipsos 1102 49 44
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 1103 38 48
FOX News 1103 44 48
Monmouth 1103 37 50
Gravis 1103 46 48
Bloomberg 1104 46 46
Economist/YouGov 1104 43 49
Total Clinton Trump Other   Margin 
Recorded  136.22 65.72 62.89 7.61 2.83
48.25% 46.17% 5.59% 2.08%
Illegal -3.0 -2.55 -0.30 -0.15 -2.25
Disenfran 4.0 3.40 0.40 0.20 3.00
Vote Flip 0.0 -7.00 6.30 0.70 -13.30
True Vote 137.22 59.57 69.29 8.36 9.72
 True Vote% 43.41% 50.50% 6.09% 7.08%

My Books
Trump Won the True Vote
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 3, 2018 in 2016 election

 

Memo to the President Ahead of Monday’s Summit

Richard Charnin
July 15,2018

Ray McGovern and Bill Binney have written an open letter to President Trump ahead of Monday’s summit. 

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/15/memo-to-the-president-ahead-of-mondays-summit/

With Friday’s indictments of Russian intelligence officers, Ray McGovern and Bill Binney have written an open letter to President Trump making clear that the “evidence” behind the indictments is as fraudulent as the intelligence alleging WMD in Iraq. It is being published exclusively here ahead of the Trump-Putin summit on Monday.

BRIEFING FOR: The President
FROM: Ray McGovern, former CIA briefer of The President’s Daily Brief, and William Binney, former Technical Director at NSA

SUBJECT: Info Your Summit Briefers May Have Missed

We reproduce below one of our most recent articles on “Russia-Gate,” which, in turn, draws from our Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Memorandum to you of July 24, 2017.

At the time of that Memorandum we wrote:

“Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack.”

“We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI,” we wrote. However, we now have forensic evidence that shows the data provided by Guccifer 2.0 had been manipulated and is a fabrication.

We also discussed CIA’s cyber-tool “Marble Framework,” which can hack into computers, “obfuscate” who hacked, and leave behind incriminating, tell-tale signs in Russian; and we noted that this capability had been employed during 2016.  As we pointed out, Putin himself made an unmistakable reference to this “obfuscating” tool during an interview with Megan Kelly.

Our article of June 7, 2018, explains further:

“Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack”

If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand close scrutiny. It could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — including two “alumni” who were former National Security Agency technical directors — have long since concluded that Julian Assange did not acquire what he called the “emails related to Hillary Clinton” via a “hack” by the Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage device — probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.

more…

My Books
Trump Won the True Vote: Polling Anomalies, Democratic Defections, Independents and Late Undecided Voters
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 15, 2018 in Uncategorized

 
 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis