RSS

Nevada: Recorded Vote vs. Exit Poll vs. True Vote

Nevada: Recorded Vote vs. Exit Poll vs. True Vote

Richard Charnin
Dec. 8, 2016

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

Clinton won Nevada by 27,000 votes (47.9-45.5%).
She led the exit poll by 50.4-43.2% (86,000 votes)
The True Vote Model indicates that Trump won by 19,000 votes (47.2-45.4)

The unadjusted NV exit poll is implausible based on two factors:
1) The Democratic Party-ID share (36D-28R-36I) is inflated. True Party-ID  is derived from the Gallup voter affiliation survey (40I- 32D- 28R). It is estimated as 31.3D -27.5R -41.2I.
2) Clinton’s  45-43% winning margin  of Independents required to match the “unadjusted” exit poll is implausibly high. Trump won Independents by 50-37% in the NV exit poll (matched to the recorded vote)  and by 48-44% nationally.

Summary Statistics

NV Unadjusted exit poll
Clinton wins: 50.4-43.2% (86,000 vote margin)
Clinton won Independents: 45-43%
Party ID: 36D- 28R- 36I

NV Reported Vote (CNN)
Clinton won: 47.9-45.5% (27,000 vote margin)
Trump won Independents: 50-37%
Party ID: 36D- 28R- 36I

NV True Vote Model
Trump wins 47.2-45.4% (19,000 vote margin)
Trump wins Independents: 50-36%
Party ID: 31.3D -27.5R -41.2I (derived from Gallup)

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/nevada
http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L2Z0UtSzNODdq08hL_nfoIR9zaOBEU4IjVehJCMF-C4/edit#gid=0

Nevada
Unadj Exit Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Other
Dem 36.0% 90% 8% 1% 1%
Rep 28.0% 8% 88% 2% 2%
Ind 36.0% 45% 43% 6% 6%
Calc 100.0% 50.8% 43.0% 3.1% 3.1%
Unadjusted 100.0% 50.9% 43.2% 3.7% 2.2%
Votes (000) 1,113 567 481 41 24
    Margin -86 -7.7%  
Reported Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Other
Dem 36.0% 90% 8% 1% 1%
Rep 28.0% 8% 88% 2% 2%
Ind 36.0% 37% 50% 7% 6%
Calc 100.0% 48.0% 45.5% 3.4% 3.1%
Reported 100.0% 47.9% 45.5% 3.3% 3.3%
Votes (000) 1,113 538 511 37 27
    Margin -27 -2.4%
True Vote Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Other
Dem 31.3% 90% 8% 1% 1%
Rep 27.5% 8% 88% 2% 2%
Ind 41.2% 36% 50% 7% 7%
Calc 100.0% 45.2% 47.3% 3.7% 3.7%
TVM bef UVA 94.5% 42.7% 44.4% 4.7% 2.7%
True Vote 100.0% 45.4% 47.2% 4.7% 2.7%
Votes (000) 1,113 506 525 53 29
    Margin 19 1.8%  
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 8, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Wisconsin Cumulative Vote Shares: 72 counties

WI Cumulative Vote Shares

Richard Charnin
Dec. 6, 2016

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

Fifty of 72 Wisconsin counties trended up for Clinton by an average of 2.5% from the 50% CVS mark to the final vote (32 exceeded 2%). Nine exceeded 2% for Trump.

One would normally expect CVS graph lines to be parallel if there is no fraud and to diverge if there is. Of course, demographics based on precinct size is also a factor.

Assuming that the county electorate is equally distributed demographically regardless of precinct size, then we should see parallel lines (Law of Large Numbers). If they diverge, it is an indication that the election may be fraudulent in favor of the candidate with the upward-sloping CVS line.

In this spreadsheet of the 72 counties, the first set (#1) of columns is the reported precinct vote; set #2 displays the votes sorted in ascending order by precinct size, #3 contains the cumulative sum of the sorted votes from small to large precincts, set #4 contains the cumulative vote shares corresponding to #3.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L2Z0UtSzNODdq08hL_nfoIR9zaOBEU4IjVehJCMF-C4/edit#gid=0

Average 39.5% 54.9% 40.1% 54.2% 0.8%
50% CVS Final Gain
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton
Adams 36.5% 59.5% 37.1% 58.9% 0.6%
Ashland 49.9% 44.2% 52.7% 41.1% 2.8%
Barron 32.0% 63.0% 34.8% 60.1% 2.8%
Bayfield 48.9% 46.6% 52.0% 43.3% 3.1%
Brown 42.9% 50.4% 41.4% 52.1% -1.5%
Buffalo 33.6% 60.6% 36.2% 57.9% 2.6%
Burnett 35.1% 60.7% 33.7% 61.9% -1.4%
Calumet 34.1% 59.4% 36.2% 57.6% 2.1%
Chippewa 35.4% 59.0% 37.7% 56.7% 2.2%
Clark 30.4% 64.4% 31.1% 63.6% 0.7%
Columbia 41.9% 51.2% 45.4% 47.6% 3.5%
Crawford 43.0% 50.5% 44.2% 49.6% 1.2%
Dane 71.0% 22.4% 70.2% 23.0% -0.9%
Dodge 29.5% 65.1% 32.4% 61.9% 2.9%
Door 42.9% 51.8% 45.6% 48.8% 2.7%
Douglas 46.5% 47.3% 50.4% 42.9% 3.9%
Dunn 59.2% 34.7% 40.9% 52.0% -18.3%
Eau Claire 50.3% 41.5% 49.7% 42.5% -0.6%
Florence 22.1% 74.7% 25.1% 71.4% 3.0%
Fond du Lac 34.7% 59.1% 33.9% 60.5% -0.8%
Forest 33.9% 62.7% 34.9% 61.4% 1.0%
Grant 38.5% 55.6% 41.3% 50.8% 2.8%
Green 49.0% 45.3% 48.0% 45.8% -0.9%
Green Lake 26.1% 69.0% 28.8% 66.2% 2.6%
Iowa 51.6% 42.0% 54.4% 39.2% 2.8%
Iron 37.7% 58.4% 36.4% 59.8% -1.3%
Jackson 39.3% 54.7% 41.2% 52.9% 1.9%
Jefferson 33.4% 59.0% 38.4% 54.3% 4.9%
Juneau 33.6% 62.1% 34.7% 60.7% 1.1%
Kenosha 54.0% 39.1% 46.4% 46.7% -7.6%
Kewaunee 31.2% 64.1% 33.7% 61.5% 2.5%
La Crosse 53.7% 39.4% 51.5% 41.9% -2.2%
Lafayette 39.2% 56.2% 42.9% 51.9% 3.7%
Langlade 33.7% 61.9% 32.2% 63.5% -1.5%
Lincoln 36.4% 57.1% 36.5% 57.1% 0.1%
Manitowoc 32.7% 60.9% 36.0% 57.5% 3.2%
Marathon 37.8% 56.3% 38.1% 56.1% 0.3%
Marinette 29.0% 67.2% 31.1% 64.8% 2.1%
Marquette 34.0% 61.1% 35.6% 59.7% 1.5%
Menominee 91.5% 5.0% 78.4% 21.0%
Milwaukee 72.2% 22.8% 65.6% 28.6% -6.6%
Monroe 32.0% 62.5% 35.8% 57.7% 3.8%
Oconto 29.0% 67.3% 29.5% 66.3% 0.5%
Oneida 40.7% 53.0% 38.5% 55.5% -2.2%
Outagamie 42.4% 51.2% 40.6% 53.1% -1.8%
Ozaukee 32.8% 61.4% 37.0% 55.8% 4.2%
Pepin 33.4% 61.5% 36.0% 59.0% 2.5%
Pierce 34.2% 59.3% 39.6% 53.1% 5.4%
Polk 33.1% 60.9% 33.3% 60.7% 0.2%
Portage 45.0% 49.5% 48.1% 45.0% 3.1%
Price 31.3% 63.8% 35.2% 60.2% 4.0%
Racine 54.1% 40.5% 45.2% 49.5% -8.9%
Richland 46.2% 47.9% 44.4% 49.9% -1.7%
Rock 51.4% 41.7% 51.7% 41.4% 0.3%
Rusk 29.3% 65.9% 30.6% 64.4% 1.3%
St. Croix 36.3% 55.4% 36.8% 55.2% 0.6%
Sauk 43.2% 51.1% 46.9% 47.2% 3.7%
Sawyer 34.9% 61.3% 38.4% 56.8% 3.5%
Shawano 31.1% 63.8% 30.7% 64.5% -0.5%
Sheboygan 41.6% 51.0% 38.5% 54.4% -3.1%
Taylor 23.3% 72.2% 25.3% 69.5% 2.0%
Trempealeau 42.0% 52.8% 41.2% 53.9% -0.7%
Vernon 42.3% 51.6% 44.7% 49.2% 2.4%
Vilas 32.5% 62.4% 35.0% 60.0% 2.5%
Walworth 36.3% 56.2% 36.4% 56.2% 0.1%
Washburn 32.6% 60.6% 35.9% 59.1% 3.3%
Washington 26.4% 66.8% 36.4% 56.2% 10.0%
Waukesha 35.7% 56.7% 33.1% 59.6% -2.6%
Waupaca 30.2% 65.1% 32.4% 62.2% 2.2%
Waushara 30.8% 64.9% 31.6% 63.9% 0.8%
Winnebago 43.8% 48.9% 42.5% 49.9% -1.2%
Wood 36.1% 58.1% 37.7% 56.9% 1.5%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 6, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: ,

Wisconsin CVS: Clinton vs. Burke 2014 Governor

Richard Charnin
Dec.4, 2016

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

As the Wisconsin recount proceeds, it is instructive to compare the 2016 election to the 2014 Governor race – especially in Milwaukee county.

In the 2014 WI Gov race, Walker won by 52.2-46.7%. It is commonly believed that Walker stole the election, mostly in Milwaukee County.

Burke won Milwaukee County by 62.8-36.1%, a 26.7% margin.
Burke won the City of Milwaukee by 76.1-22.4% (53.7%)
Walker won the Milwaukee suburbs by 52.9-46.1% (6.8%)

Trump won WI by 47.2-46.4%.
Clinton won Milwaukee County by 65.6-28.6% (37.0%).
Clinton won the City of Milwaukee by 76.6-18.4% (58.2%).
Clinton won the Milwaukee suburbs by 51.6-41.6 (10%).

This sheet compares Clinton to Burke (2014 Dem Gov race) in all WI counties. It is sorted by percentage gain in Clinton’s 2-party share vs. Burke.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L2Z0UtSzNODdq08hL_nfoIR9zaOBEU4IjVehJCMF-C4/edit#gid=239416879

CLINTON GAINED OVER BURKE IN 25 LARGE, MOSTLY REPUBLICAN COUNTIES WITH 2,146,000 VOTES! In 2014, Walker won 18, Burke won 5 and 2 were nearly tied.

Clinton lost share in the other 47 counties with just 802,000 votes (5 of the 47 were won by Burke). What does this indicate, given that Walker stole the election from Burke?

Does it mean a) there was virtually no fraud (Hillary picked up votes stolen from Burke in counties) or b) there was fraud (Hillary picked up votes in 18 Republican counties, but lost votes in small Republican counties)

Although Clinton was unpopular and Burke well-liked, Clinton exceeeded Burke by 4.5% in the City of Milwaukee and 16.8% in the suburbs. Was the fraud in Clinton’s favor this time?

This is a Cumulative vote share/ graph analysis  for all 72 WI counties:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L2Z0UtSzNODdq08hL_nfoIR9zaOBEU4IjVehJCMF-C4/edit#gid=0

In the CVS tables, the first group of columns is the reported precinct vote; set #2 is the votes sorted in ascending order by precinct size, #3 is the cumulative sum of the precinct votes from smallest to largest precincts, #4 is the cumulative vote shares based on #3.

One would normally expect the CVS graph lines to be parallel if there was little or no fraud or else diverge in case of fraud. Of course, county precinct demographics based is also a factor. The assumption that the county electorate is independent of precinct size.

WI reported votes by county (CNN): http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/wisconsin/president

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 4, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

The 2016 presidential recounts: why not add these six states?

Richard Charnin
Dec. 1, 2016

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton seek recounts in three close states that Trump won: WI, PA, MI. This is an analysis of six states that Clinton barely won. Shouldn’t they be re-counted as well?

The 2016 Election Model exactly forecast the official recorded electoral vote: 306 – 232. It also forecast the True electoral vote as 351-187 (after  undecided voter allocation). Trump would win the True EV if he won six states he narrowly lost: VA NV MN NH ME CO.

Go to the row specified in this spreadsheet for each state calculation and links to the exit polls. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

Exit Polls are always forced to match the Reported vote

NH
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won NH by 3,000 votes (47.6-47.2%)
Party-ID: 36D-33R-31I.
Using the same vote shares, but with a 21.5D-23.9R-54.6I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey (32D-28R-40I),
Trump won NH by 28,000 votes (47.9-44.0%).
Go to row  551

MN
Final  Exit Poll: Clinton won MN by 44,000 votes (46.9-45.4%)
Party-ID: 37D-35R-28I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated  34.7D-31R-34.3I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey.
Trump won MN by 31,000 votes (47.2-46.1%).
Go to row 582

ME
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won ME by 20,000 votes (47.9-45.2%)
Party-ID: 31D-30R-39I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated  25.2D-21.6R-53.3I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey,
Trump won ME by 24,000 votes (47.3-44.1%).
Go to row 616

CO
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won CO by 75,000 votes (47.3-44.4%)
Party-ID: 32D-24R-33I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated 24.4D-26.2R-49.5I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey,
Trump won CO by 86,000 votes (47.5-44.1%).
Go to row 650

NV
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won NV by 26,000 votes (47.7-45.5%)
Party-ID: 36D-28R-36I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated 31.3D-27.5R-41.2I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey,
Trump won NV by 20,000 votes (47.2-45.5%)
Go to row 514.

VA
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won VA by 186,000 votes (49.9-45.0%)
Party-ID: 40D-33R-26I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated 31.6D-33.4R-35I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey,
Trump won VA by 60,000 votes (48.1-46.1%).
Go to row 479.

These states look fraudulent (vote padding?)
IL
Final Exit Poll: Clinton won IL by 859,000 votes (55.4-39.4%)
Party-ID: 45D-30R-25I
Using the same vote shares with an estimated
Party-ID: 37.1D-27.8R-35.1I derived from the Gallup National survey
Clinton won IL by 336,000 votes (51.1-41.4%).
Go to row 720

CA
Final Exit Poll: 84% of precincts reporting
Clinton won CA by 3,390,000 votes (61.6-32.7%)
Party-ID: 47D-23R-30I.
Using the same vote shares,
Clinton won CA by 2,305,000 votes (56.1-36.5%).with
Party-ID: 34.2D-22.3R-43.5I
Go to row 800

SUMMARY COMPARISON (based on Party-ID)

Unadj   Reported   True Vote  
Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 48.39% 45.80% 46.14% 49.65% 44.34% 48.66%
Diff   -2.59%   3.51%   4.32%
OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 43.9% 51.4%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 45.9% 46.6%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 44.6% 46.4%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.8% 45.8%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.7% 45.3% 47.8%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 41.5% 51.7%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 41.1% 50.6%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 43.8% 49.6%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 48.2% 45.2%
         
% Share of Ind  Unadj   Reported   True Vote  
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 47.33% 40.30% 39.17% 53.09% 35.33% 50.89%
Diff   -7.03%   13.92%   15.56%
OH 50.0% 34.0% 38.0% 52.0% 38.0% 52.0%
NC 44.0% 44.0% 38.5% 56.0% 35.0% 49.0%
NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 36.0% 52.0%
PA 50.0% 43.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 53.0%
MI 32.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.3% 45.0% 56.3%
MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 39.0% 45.0%
IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 51.0%
FL 48.0% 43.0% 43.0% 47.0% 25.0% 50.0%
WI 48.0% 37.0% 43.0% 46.0% 43.0% 46.0%
VA
Unadj Exit Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein Other
Dem 40.0% 92% 6% 1% 0% 1%
Rep 33.0% 6% 88% 3% 0% 3%
Ind 26.0% 47% 45% 6% 2% 0%
Calc 100.0% 51.0% 43.1% 3.0% 0.5% 2%
Unadj 100.0% 50.9% 43.2% 3.7% 2.2%
Votes (000) 3,792 1,930 1,638 140 83
Margin -292 -7.7%
VA
Reported Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein Other
Dem 40.0% 92% 6% 1% 0% 1%
Rep 33.0% 6% 88% 3% 0% 3%
Ind 26.0% 43% 48% 6% 2% 1%
Calc 100.0% 50.0% 43.9% 3.0% 0.5% 3%
Reported 100.0% 49.9% 45.0% 3.2% 1.9%
Votes (000) 3,792 1,917 1,731 117 27
Margin -186 -4.8%
VA
True Vote Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein Other
Dem 31.6% 92% 6% 1% 0% 1%
Rep 33.4% 6% 88% 3% 0% 3%
Ind 35.0% 43% 48% 6% 2% 1%
Calc 100.0% 46.1% 48.1% 3.4% 0.7% 1.7%
TVM bef UVA 95.0% 41.2% 47.0% 4.4% 2.4%
True Vote 100.0% 42.4% 50.7% 4.4% 2.4%
Votes (000) 3,021 1,282 1,533 134 73
Margin 251 8.3%
Votes (calc) 3,021 1,393 1,453 103 21
60 2.0%
 
3 Comments

Posted by on December 1, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2016 Election Scenario Analysis

Richard Charnin
Nov. 23, 2016

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

This is an analysis of four election scenarios. 

1. Gallup Party-ID and True Vote Model (TVM) vote shares
2. Gallup Party-ID and National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares
3. NEP Party-ID and NEP vote shares
4. NEP Party-ID and TVM vote shares

It is a FACT: the Reported vote is NEVER equal to the True Vote. The pundits always brainwash the public into assuming that the Reported vote represents True voter intent. 

The National Exit Poll is always forced to match the Reported vote  (view Scenario 3).
NEP Party-ID is 36D-33R-31I.
Clinton leads Trump by 2.03 million votes: 47.7-46.2%.
Others (including Johnson and Stein) have just 6.1% combined. Stein has 1%.

The True Vote Model (Scenario 1) uses Gallup Party-ID: 40I-32D-28R.
Trump leads Clinton by 2.18 million votes: 45.7-44.0%.  How many of the Other 10.3% voted for Jill Stein? Surely more than 1%. Probably close to 5%.

It is clear that the third party vote is a key factor. Jill Stein had an implausibly low 1% share. Where did her votes go?  Compare Trump’s 2.18 million True Vote margin in Scenario 1, in which third parties had 10.3%, to his negative margins in scenarios 2 and 3 where third parties had 6-7%. The differential  indicates that Stein did better than 1%. Her votes were stolen.

Exit poll discrepancies: http://tdmsresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-Election-Table_Nov-17.-2016.jpg

 True Vote Sensitivity Analysis: Calculate Trump’s vote margins over a range of his shares of Republicans and Independents.

 1. True Vote Model  Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 89% 9% 2%
Rep 28% 7% 90% 3%
Ind 40% 34% 44% 22%
TVM Total 100% 44.0% 45.7% 10.3%
Votes (mil) 133.26 58.69 60.87 13.70
2. Gallup/NEP   Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 89% 8% 3%
Rep 28% 8% 88% 4%
Ind 40% 42% 46% 12%
Total 100% 47.5% 45.6% 6.9%
Votes (mil) 133.26 63.33 60.77 9.17
3. NEP/NEP Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89% 8% 3%
Rep 33% 8% 88% 4%
Ind 31% 42% 46% 12%
Total 100% 47.7% 46.2% 6.1%
Votes (mil) 133.26 63.57 61.54 8.16
4. NEP/TVM Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89% 9% 2%
Rep 33% 7% 90% 3%
Ind 31% 34% 44% 22%
Total 100% 44.9% 46.6% 8.5%
Votes (mil) 133.26 59.82 62.07 11.37

True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis

Scenario 1 Trump % Rep
Trump 85.0% 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 93.0%
% Ind Trump
48% 46.2% 46.7% 47.3% 47.8% 48.4%
44% 44.6% 45.1% 45.7% 46.2% 46.8%
40% 43.0% 43.5% 44.1% 44.6% 45.2%
Clinton
48% 43.6% 43.0% 42.4% 41.9% 41.3%
44% 45.2% 44.6% 44.0% 43.5% 42.9%
40% 46.8% 46.2% 45.6% 45.1% 44.5%
 Share Margin
48% 2.6% 3.7% 4.8% 6.0% 7.1%
44% -0.6% 0.5% 1.6% 2.8% 3.9%
40% -3.8% -2.7% -1.6% -0.4% 0.7%
 Vote (000)  Margin 
48% 3.5 5.0 6.4 7.9 9.4
44% -0.8 0.7 2.2 3.7 5.2
40% -5.1 -3.6 -2.1 -0.6 0.9

Summary Comparison (based on Party-ID)

Unadj   Reported   True Vote  
Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 48.39% 45.80% 46.14% 49.65% 44.57% 48.45%
Diff   -2.59%   3.51%   3.88%
OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 43.9% 51.4%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 45.9% 46.6%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 44.6% 46.4%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.8% 45.8%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.7% 45.3% 47.8%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 41.5% 51.7%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 41.1% 50.6%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.9% 47.7%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 48.2% 45.2%
         
% Share of Ind  Unadj   Reported   True Vote  
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 47.33% 40.30% 39.17% 53.09% 36.11% 50.22%
Diff   -7.03%   13.92%   14.11%
OH 50.0% 34.0% 38.0% 52.0% 38.0% 52.0%
NC 44.0% 44.0% 38.5% 56.0% 35.0% 49.0%
NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 36.0% 52.0%
PA 50.0% 43.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 53.0%
MI 32.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.3% 45.0% 56.3%
MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 39.0% 45.0%
IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 51.0%
FL 48.0% 43.0% 48.0% 50.5% 32.0% 53.0%
WI 48.0% 37.0% 43.0% 46.0% 43.0% x46.0%
 
23 Comments

Posted by on November 23, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

The 2016 Election Fraud Quiz

Richard Charnin
Updated: Nov. 23, 2016

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

2016 Election Model (EM)

True or False

1 The Democrats stole the primary from Bernie
2 The GOP primary was virtually fraud-free
3 Plausible: Clinton would try to steal the presidential election
4 Implausible: Clinton’s CA margin is 5.8% higher than Obama in 2012
5 Voters were disenfranchised in the primaries

6 Millions of voters were disenfranchised in the election
7 Millions of illegals voted (see Link1Link2)
8 The Reported Vote is never equal to the True Vote due to Election Fraud
9 The MSM is for Hillary although she is under criminal investigation
10 Bernie’s crowds were nearly 100X larger than Clinton

11 Trump’s crowds were nearly 100X larger than Clinton
12 Exit pollster Edison Research works for the National Election Pool
13 Unadjusted exit polls proved election fraud since 1988
14 The MSM covered up 2000, 2004 elections and 2016 primary fraud
15 The MSM disparaged exit polls as conspiracy theory- until 2016

16 Corporate media pollsters rigged the pre-election polls for HRC
17 Corporate Media pollsters may have rigged the exit polls for HRC
18 The MSM never mentions the “third rail”: rigged voting machines
19 The MSM has focused strictly on voter disenfranchisement
20 Party ID (9 pre-election polls): 29 Ind, 39 Dem, 32 Rep ( Election  Model)

21 Party ID National Exit Poll: 31 Ind, 36 Dem, 33 Rep
22 Party ID  Gallup voter affiliation survey: 40 Ind, 32 Dem, 28 Rep 
23 Trump led Independents in 9 pre-election polls: 44-34% (Election Model)
24 Trump leads Independents in the National Exit Poll by just 46-42%
25  Fraction Magic  used to flip votes on central tabulators

26 Virtually all reported DRE vote flipping was Trump to HRC
27 The DNC not calling for a FULL audit indicates Trump won 
28 Jill Stein must have exceeded 1% of the national vote

 
24 Comments

Posted by on November 20, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags:

Implausible: NY Unadjusted exit poll

Richard Charnin
Nov. 19, 2016

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
LINKS TO  POSTS

Reversal of Fortune:Trump did better in the exit poll than the recorded vote.
But he did even better in the True Vote Model

WHERE DID JILL STEIN’S VOTES GO?

NY 2012 Recorded Vote
Obama defeated Romney by 1.97 million (4.472-2.495) votes: 63.3-35.2% (28.1% margin)

NY 2016 CNN Reported (95% in)
Clinton leads Trump by 1.47 million votes: 58.9-37.4% (21.5% margin)
Party-ID:  48D- 26R- 26I
Clinton leads Independents by 48-42%

NY 2016 Unadjusted Exit Poll
Clinton leads Trump by 1.10 million votes: 55.8-39.8% (16.0% margin)
Party-ID:  48D- 26R- 26I
Trump leads Independents by 51-36%

NY 2016 True Vote Model
Clinton leads Trump by 798,000 votes: 50.7-42.0% (8.7% margin)
Party-ID:  39D- 19R- 42I
Trump leads Independents by 53-31%

NY 2016 Vote and Exit poll data (CNN)
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/states/new-york

Go to Row 490
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1141167047

Updated: 2016-Presidential-Election-Table_Nov-17.-2016.jpg

2016-presidential-election-table_nov-10-2016

NY Unadjusted Exit Poll Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 48% 92% 7% 1%
Rep 26% 9% 89% 2%
Ind 26% 36% 51% 13%
Calc 100% 55.9% 39.8% 4.4%
Unadjusted 100% 55.8% 39.8% 4.4%
Votes (000) 6,883 3,841 2,739 303
Margin -1,101 -16.0%
95% reported
Reported Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 48% 92% 7% 1%
Rep 26% 9% 89% 2%
Ind 26% 48% 42% 10%
Calc 100% 59.0% 37.4% 3.6%
Reported 100% 58.9% 37.4% 3.7%
Votes (000) 6,883 4,051 2,577 255
Margin -1,474 -21.41%
True Vote Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 39.0% 92% 7% 1%
Rep 19.0% 9% 89% 2%
Ind 42.0% 31% 53% 16%
Calc 100.0% 50.6% 41.9% 7.5%
TVM before UVA 94.3% 49.3% 37.7% 7.3%
True Vote 100.0% 50.7% 42.0% 7.3%
Votes (000) 6,883 3,393 2,595 502
Margin -798 -8.8%
 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 19, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis