RSS

Probability of exactly forecasting the electoral vote in the last three elections

Richard Charnin
Feb. 11, 2017

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

I was asked to calculate the probability of my exact forecast of the Electoral Vote in the last three elections. It was a combination of experience and luck. I do not expect to exactly forecast the EV in 2020.

Note that the following calculation is just an approximation.

Assume the following:
1) the probability of Obama winning in 2008 was 0.95; it was also 0.95 in 2012. The probability of Trump winning in 2016 was 0.05.
Therefore the probability of forecasting all three winners correctly is
P1 = 0.045 =.95*.95*.05

2) the winning EV is in the 270-370 range.
The probability of exactly forecasting the EV in a given election is 0.01. The probability of exactly forecasting the EV in all 3 elections is 1 in a million:
P2 =.000001 = 0.01*0.01*0.01

Therefore, the probability of forecasting the winner and the EV in the three elections is
P3 = P1*P2 = .045* 0.000001 or 1 in 22 million.

To put it another way, forecasting the electoral vote exactly in three successive elections would be expected to occur just once in 22 million elections (88 million years).

Track Record
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 11, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

HISPANIC VOTER TURNOUT TREND

Richard Charnin
Feb. 10, 2017

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

What does this tell you?

In 2016, approximately 3.8 million (95%) of 4 million newly registered (since 2012) Hispanics voted. Only 2 million new voters would have been expected based on the historic voter turnout trend. Were the nearly 2 million new voters illegal?

In the 1988-2012 elections, an average of 47.6% of eligible Hispanics turned out to vote. In 2016, 54.9% turned out. There is a 2.2% probability of a 7.3% change in average turnout. The 7.3% increase represents 1,1 million of 15 million votes.

Votes in millions
Year Eligible Voted Turnout
1988 7.7 3.7 48.1%
1992 8.3 4.3 51.8%
1996 11.2 4.9 43.8%
2000 13.2 5.9 44.7%
2004 16.1 7.6 47.2%
2008 19.5 9.7 49.7%
2012 23.3 11.2 48.1%
Avg 14.2 6.8 47.6%
2016 27.3 15 54.9% < 95% new voter turnout?
Stdev…………… 3.65%
Prob……………. 2.23%

View the data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1546668571
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/01/19/looking-forward-to-2016-the-changing-latino-electorate/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 10, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags:

Sanders won the CA primary with at least 53% – a 14% discrepancy from the recorded vote

Richard Charnin
Feb. 9, 2017

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

This analysis shows that Sanders had a conservative 53.2% in the California primary. His recorded share was just 46.6%.

Knowing the extent of the fraud in the primary, are we to believe that Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million over Trump? Are we to believe the corporate media shills who are in the tank for Hillary and claim there is no evidence of fraud and that Trump is just blowing smoke?

The California primary vote timeline indicates it was stolen in early voting before 5pm on June7.

– On Election Day June 7, prior to 5pm, Sanders had 36.6% of 1.52 million recorded absentee votes by mail (VBM). But a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles VBM compared to the actual results.

Ballots from likely Clinton voters were counted first while unaudited heavy batches of Sanders’ votes came in later.

On June 7, from 5pm to poll closing, Sanders had 48.9% of 1.95 million ballots. From June 8 to July 7, Sanders had 52.7% of 1.65 million ballots.

But we must also consider nearly 1 million uncounted ballots:
– Sanders had an estimated 66% of 100,000 provisional ballots.
– He had an estimated 71% of one million NPP (no-party preference) ballots.

THREE SCENARIOS
If Sanders had an early VBM share of
a- 47% he would have won CA with 53.2% (400,000 votes).
b- 42% he would have won with 52.0% (250,000 votes).
c- 36.6% (reported) he would have won with 50.7% (87,000 votes).

Spreadsheet calculations: Go to cell M88. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420

 
3 Comments

Posted by on February 9, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

CALIFORNIA PRIMARY VOTE TIMELINE INDICATES IT WAS STOLEN IN EARLY VOTING BEFORE 5PM ON JUNE 7.

Richard Charnin
Feb.5, 2017

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

Sanders had 43.6% in the California primary on Election Day, June 7. He had 52.7% in ballots counted from June 8-July 7 for a total 46.6% share. View CA counties timeline from June 7 to July 7: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420

But those are the recorded votes. He did much better than 46.6%.

1- In LA County on Election Day, June 7, Sanders had 33.4% in early voting before 5 pm. He had 42.4% at closing on June 7. He had 45.1% in the final count on July 7. “Election Justice USA asserts that a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results”. http://www.inquisitr.com/3202381/election-justice-on-california-primary-early-voter-exit-poll-yields-23-discrepancy-with-l-a-vote-by-mail-totals/#y2htCZ1YrCQapYPK.99

2- In San Diego County on Election Day, June 7, Sanders had 35.8% in early voting before 5 pm. He had 44.5% at closing on June 7. He had 48.1% in the final count on July 7. From Ray Lutz: “We won! Press conf details how San Diego County (and many others) cheat on election audits. Court case PROVES election audit fraud in San Diego, where they left out 285,000 ballots from the audit, and then carefully rifled through and pre-counted 192,000 in the audit. Bernie Sanders won 58% to 42% in the polling-place ballots but lost 58% to 42% against HRC in the “rifled through” and precounted vote-by-mail ballots”.

Finally, provisional ballots were a landslide for BS by 62.54% to 37.46%. The Later VBMs and Provisionals were not audited at all, and this was the subject of our lawsuit (which we won). The final margin of victory by HRC was a razor-thin 3.75%. The later VBMs and provisional ballots leaves a big hole for undetectable hacking to occur either by a compromised employee or by external hackers with access to the central tabulator, or simply mistakes in tabulating machines. The margin of victory was only 16,000 votes between Clinton and Sanders in the primary, easily hid in the 285,000 unaudited ballots, and even in those 68,000 accepted but unaudited provisional. Clearly, such blatant violation of the election code is a form of election fraud. http://www.copswiki.org/Common/SanDiegoPrimaryRecount2016

3- Humboldt County,CA is the only one in the U.S. with a foolproof Open Source vote counting/audit system. Is it just a coincidence that Bernie had his highest share in Humboldt (71%)? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/bernie-landslide-in-ca-humboldt-cty-open-source-system/

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/confirmation-bernie-won-california-by-at-least-100000-votes/

J.T. Waldron writes at http://electionnightmares.com/archives/564
As John Brakey states, “Elections are only as strong as their weakest link”.Despite California counting only 65% of the ballots on election day, media outlets like Politico and The New York Times ceased from covering the rest of the count, which leaves its audience assuming a literal interpretation of “100% of the precincts reporting”, but that statement does not mean all the votes are counted. It only means precinct ballots from all of the precincts have been counted, but there are many vote-by-mail and provisional ballots that have yet to be included in this total.

In fact, the cumulative count in days following California’s election day proved to be riveting to many Sanders supporters who were watching the Sanders deficit shrink. Brakey assesses the sudden shift: “On election night, shortly after 8:00 PM, the first results were released and they were 99% vote-by-mail ballots. The numbers showed Hillary Clinton with a decisive lead over Bernie Sanders by 25.94% points. Clinton received 62.56% to Sanders 36.63% with 1.52 million vote-by-mail ballots.

By early the next morning, another 1.94 million ballots were counted. Clinton received 50.73% and Sanders got 48.47%, but those numbers are deceiving. On election day, 718,869 voters were forced to vote a provisional ballot which, in my estimate, are 80% Democratic voters with at least 60% going to Sanders. This would be enough to flip the ‘precinct vote’ to Sanders, who would get 52% over Clinton’s new total of 47%. This spread more accurately reflects the pre-election polling numbers”.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 5, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: ,

Russian tampering with the election?

Richard Charnin
Jan.31, 2017

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

Russian tampering with the election? Who do you believe: Hillary Clinton, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc…Or these guys?

– CIA veteran Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RhziSn_lcE

– Julian Assange. Russians did not leak. He has never been wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhgVnn_vH5k

–  Barack Obama. In his last press conference said it was a leak, not a hack. http://www.globalresearch.ca/stunning-admission-from-obama-on-wikileaks-dnc-emails-leaked-but-not-hacked/5569807

–  William Binney,. NSA system developer. If the Russians hacked there would be evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q92IsbG-O1w

– Robert David Steel, former CIA case officer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhgtg-4EU8U&feature=youtu.be

– Craig Murray, UK ambassador, met the DNC leaker (7:00 mark). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3DvaVrRweY

– John McAfee, Cyber-security expert. No Russian Hack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7t5zbKnvQk

– Ben Swann, Reality Check: 5 problems with CIA claim that Russian hacked the election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNIrPLHVfdI

– Ben Swann, Reality Check: Fake news from Washington Post that Russia hacked the Vermont Power Grid. Never happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qSrprBYdxA

– Glenn Greenwald, on the lack of evidence in the Washington Post CIA leaks. https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 31, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Trump approval rating: MSM still oversampling Democrats

Richard Charnin
Updated: Jan.20, 2017

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

Just like in the pre-election and exit polls, the mainstream media’s approval rating inflated the Democratic share of the electorate.

The latest Washington Post poll indicates a 40% Trump approval rating based on an
8-point Democratic advantage in Party ID: 31D, 23R, 46I. But the Gallup party affiliation survey has a 3-point Republican advantage: 25D, 28R,44I.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The Rasmussen daily tracking poll as of Jan.20 has a Trump 56% approval rating! http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan20

The National Exit Poll is always adjusted to match the recorded vote.
The 2016 poll indicated Party-ID was 36D, 33R, 31I.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president
The Nov.6 Gallup survey had Party-ID at 31D, 27R, 36I.

From Zero Hedge:
In the month leading up to the election on November 8th, we repeatedly demonstrated how the mainstream media polls from the likes of ABC/Washington Post, CNN and Reuters repeatedly manipulated their poll samples to engineer their desired results, namely a large Hillary Clinton lead (see “New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through ‘Oversamples'” and “ABC/Wapo Effectively Admit To Poll Tampering As Hillary’s “Lead” Shrinks To 2-Points”). In fact, just 16 days prior to the election an ABC/Wapo poll showed a 12-point lead for Hillary, a result that obviously turned out to be embarrassingly wrong for the pollsters.

But, proving they still got it, ABC/Washington Post and CNN are out with a pair of polls on Trump’s favorability this morning that sport some of the most egregious “oversamples” we’ve seen. The ABC/Wapo poll showed an 8-point sampling margin for Democrats with only 23% of the results taken from Republicans…

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-17/new-abc-wapo-poll-shows-drop-trump-favorabilty-through-aggressive-oversamples

https://libertywritersnews.com/2017/01/urgent-media-caught-lying-trumps-pre-inauguration-approval-ratings-real-numbers/

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/pre-election-and-national-exit-poll-categories-vs-the-true-vote/

Party-ID

2016 Nine Pre-election poll average 
……. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 39% 88.4% 6.00% 3.0%
Rep 32% 5.00% 87.8% 4.0%
Ind. 29% 33.8% 43.6% 13.0%
… 100% 47.4% 46.0% 6.2%
Votes 136.2 64.6 62.7 8.5
Margin -2.0

National Exit Poll (adjusted to match the recorded vote)
……. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89.0% 8.00% 3.0%
Rep 33% 8.00% 88.0% 4.0%
Ind. 31% 42.0% 46.0% 12.0%
… 100% 47.7% 46.2% 6.1%
Votes 136.2 65.0 62.9 8.3
Margin -2.1

2016 Nine Pre-election poll average (Gallup Party-ID)
……. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 88.4% 6.00% 3.00%
Rep 28% 5.00% 87.8% 4.00%
Ind. 40% 33.8% 43.6% 13.0%
… 100% 45.1% 47.5% 7.3%
Votes 136.2 61.4 64.7 9.9
Margin 3.2

National Exit Poll (adjusted to match the estimated True Vote)
……. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 88.0% 9.00% 3.0%
Rep 28% 7.00% 89.0% 4.0%
Ind. 40% 38.0% 51.0% 11.0%
… 100% 45.3% 48.2% 6.5%
Votes 136.2 61.7 65.7 8.8
Margin 3.9

Trump Trump %Independent
%Rep 49.0% 51.0% 53.0%
91%. 47.96% 48.76% 49.56%
89%. 47.40% 48.20% 49.0%
87%. 46.84% 47.64% 48.44%

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 19, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

RACE: 2012-2016 National Exit Poll and 2012 Census

Richard Charnin
Jan.15, 2017

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

According to the 2012 Vote Census, the percentage of black citizens registered to vote exceeded that of whites (73-71.8%). They also exceeded the percentage of whites who voted (65.9-62.1%). The 2016 Census will be out in April.

According to the National Exit Poll, Trump won the white vote by 57-37%. But he must have done better than that since the National Exit Poll was forced to match Hillary’s bogus recorded vote (48-46%). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1042213556

National Exit Poll
Voted………2012…………. 2016
White….. 95,187. 74%. 96,702. 71%
Black….. 17,297. 13%..16,344. 12%< Cross-check?
Hispanic 10,869.. 8%…14,982. 11% < Illegal?
Asian…… 3,795.. 3%… 5,448. 4%
Other……. 1,949.. 2%… 2,724. 2%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1546668571

2012 Census (2016 not available)
% Citizens registered:
White 71.8; Black 73.0; Hispanic 58.7; Asian 57.3
% Citizens voted:
White 62.1; Black 65.9; Hispanic 48.0; Asian 47.9
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=555030619

National Exit Poll- Party ID
……….. Pct 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… 136.2 65.0 62.9 8.3
Margin -2.07

True Vote- Party ID (Gallup)
………..Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem…..32% 88% 9% 3%
Rep….. 28% 7% 89% 4%
Ind…… 40% 38% 51% 11%
Total. 100% 45.3% 48.2% 6.5%
Votes 136.2 61.7 65.7 8.8
Margin 3.92

National Exit Poll- Race
…………. Pct Clinton Trump Other
White…… 71% 37% 57% 6%
Black……. 12% 89% 8% 3%
Hispanic… 11% 66% 28% 6%
Asian…….. 4% 65% 27% 8%
Other…….. 2% 56% 36% 8%
Total…….. 100% 47.9% 46.3% 5.8%

True Vote- Race
……………Pct Clinton Trump Other
White…….. 71% 33% 59% 8%
Black……… 12% 87% 9% 4%
Hispanic….. 11% 66% 28% 6%
Asian………..4% 65% 27% 8%
Other………. 2% 56% 36% 8%
Total…….. 100% 44.9% 47.9% 7.3%

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 15, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis