RSS

SMOKING GUN! APPROXIMATELY 15% OF BERNIE’S VOTES WERE FLIPPED TO CLINTON IN CALIFORNIA

Richard Charnin
June 24, 2016
Updated: June 27

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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

SMOKING GUN! APPROXIMATELY 15% OF BERNIE’S VOTES WERE FLIPPED TO CLINTON IN CALIFORNIA

In California on Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.8-43.2% in Total Votes Cast. Sanders leads in Updates since Election Day by 51.1-48.9% . The updates include mail-ins, crossover ballots, provisional ballots and others. Technically, these votes are probably not all hand-counted, although we have been told that they have been individually verified.

It appears that nearly 15% of Sanders’ votes were flipped to Clinton on maliciously-coded voting machines and central tabulators. 

Sanders hand-counted share exceeded his machine-counted share in virtually ALL 58 counties. The probability of this occurrence is ZERO.  View the CA Update spreadsheet.

 

Sander’s Vote share change from Election Day

 California Election Day June 7  Sanders 43.63% June 8 – June 25 Sanders 51.11% Change           +7.48%
ALAMEDA 39.1% 61.1% 22.0%
ALPINE 67.4% 72.7% 5.3%
AMADOR 42.5% 52.8% 10.3%
BUTTE 53.5% 72.4% 18.9%
CALAVERAS 44.9% 60.5% 15.6%
COLUSA 41.6% 55.4% 13.8%
CONTRA COSTA 32.6% 47.1% 14.5%
DEL NORTE 52.7% 72.6% 19.9%
EL DORADO 44.3% 56.6% 12.3%
FRESNO 32.1% 50.9% 18.8%
GLENN 48.0% 57.8% 9.8%
HUMBOLDT 61.2% n/a n/a
IMPERIAL 24.7% 34.6% 9.9%
INYO 50.4% 59.2% 8.8%
KERN 35.1% 47.6% 12.5%
KINGS 34.6% 58.4% 23.8%
LAKE 44.7% n/a n/a
LASSEN 51.4% 67.5% 16.1%
LOS ANGELES 33.4% 49.9% 16.5%
MADERA 39.6% 55.7% 16.1%
MARIN 36.6% 43.8% 7.2%
MARIPOSA 48.9% 68.7% 19.8%
MENDOCINO 58.8% n/a n/a
MERCED 36.4% 49.4% 13.0%
MODOC 53.7% n/a n/a
MONO 81.5% 69.7% -11.8%
MONTEREY 36.3% 49.9% 13.6%
NAPA 37.8% 51.8% 14.0%
NEVADA 55.7% 64.3% 8.6%
ORANGE 36.4% 53.6% 17.2%
PLACER 36.5% n/a n/a
PLUMAS 55.0% n/a n/a
RIVERSIDE 32.5% 47.0% 14.5%
SACRAMENTO 35.5% 46.1% 10.6%
SAN BENARDINO 34.3% 48.9% 14.6%
SAN BENITO 36.8% 47.0% 10.2%
SAN DIEGO 35.8% 51.4% 15.6%
SAN FRANCISCO 37.6% 50.9% 13.3%
SAN JOAQUIN 34.4% 45.6% 11.2%
SAN LUIS OBISPO 43.9% 62.3% 18.4%
SAN MATEO 30.9% 42.2% 11.3%
SANTA BARBARA 40.6% 56.1% 15.5%
SANTA CLARA 34.3% 48.0% 13.7%
SANTA CRUZ 47.9% 62.4% 14.5%
SHASTA 45.8% 59.9% 14.1%
SIERRA 59.3% 66.7% 7.4%
SISKIYOU 53.5% 64.4% 10.9%
SOLANO 36.8% 56.2% 19.4%
SONOMA 44.3% n/a n/a
STANISLAUS 37.1% 48.8% 11.7%
SUTTER 40.1% 50.3% 10.2%
TEHAMA 44.8% 55.7% 10.9%
TRINITY 59.8% 74.8% 15.0%
TULARE 37.6% 48.2% 10.6%
TUOLUMNE 46.0% 62.5% 16.5%
VENTURA 40.1% 54.6% 14.5%
YOLO 40.3% 58.7% 18.4%
YUBA 44.4% 56.1% 11.7%

 

Posted 6/25/2016 on Facebook by Phillip Wyler Evans:

Votes counted on Election Day
Clinton led Sanders by 56.37-43.63% (1,940,580-1,502,043 votes)

Votes counted since Election Day:
Sanders led Clinton by 51.11 – 48.89% (711,554-680,724 votes)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420
————————————————————————-

Poll workers claim that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposed to have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they would have to vote using provisional ballots.  There were two reasons for this:

1-previously registered voters’ names had been removed from the rolls.  

2- Some were marked as vote by mail voters – but they had received no ballot in the mail.  Virtually all who were not  allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters.

Poll workers in Los Angeles and Orange County report that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2 to 1 margin, the opposite of the vote count.  The contrast indicates vote-flipping.  

If you add the lower figure of 50% of voters who were not allowed to vote regular ballots for Bernie to the votes he received, you wind up with a substantial Sanders landslide victory in California.  The primary beneficiary of the fraud is Hillary Clinton.  

EARLY VOTER EXIT POLL – A 23% DISCREPANCY

Election Justice USA is a voter advocacy non-profit organization which demands a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.  It asserts that the 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. In Los Angeles area polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton  lead over Bernie Sanders was less than 10 percent. 

 “The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents, and was praised–prior to election night–by mainstream elections journalists, including Nate Cohn of the New York Times. While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, especially one of this magnitude. It’s also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit.”

 

PROVISIONAL BALLOTS

http://heavy.com/news/2016/06/california-flip-bernie-sanders-primary-votes-counted-counties-provisional/

Acclaimed BBC reporter, author and election fraud expert Greg Palast (pictured to the right) calls  provisional ballots “placebo ballots.”     How California is being stolen from Sanders right now“As I’ve previously reported, provisional ballots are “placebo” ballots that let you feel like you’ve voted, but you haven’t. Provisional ballots are generally discarded.”

Greg exposed the fraud in Florida in 2000.  Nightline used his footage in covering the story.

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 
70 Comments

Posted by on June 24, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Democratic Primary True Vote Model: Sanders has 52%

Democratic Primaries True Vote Model: Bernie has 52%

Richard Charnin
June 19, 2016

Richard Charnin

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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

This model estimates Sanders’ True Vote. The base case estimate is that Sanders had 52.3% of the total vote in primaries and caucuses.

It is important to note that Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his
1) recorded share  in 24 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  
2) recorded share by greater than the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on?

TRUE VOTE MODEL BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS

1.Sanders won the caucuses with 63.9% 
2.  20% of voters  were disenfranchised  (voter rolls, provisional ballots, etc.) .
3. Sanders won 75% of uncounted votes 
4. 10% of Sanders’ votes flipped to Clinton.

Clinton had 51.7% in 26 primaries after adjusting  the exit polls for uncounted votes.

Sensitivity analysis tables display the effects of  flipped votes and uncounted provisional ballots  over a range of assumptions.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS    UNCOUNTED BALLOTS
75% Unctd to Sanders 10% 20% 30%
  Flipped to Clinton   Sanders total Share  
15% 51.1% 52.5% 54.0%
10% 50.5% 52.0% 53.5%
5% 50.0% 51.5% 52.9%

CALIFORNIA

Assuming a) 30% of California voters were disenfranchised, b) Sanders had 75% of provisional ballots, c) 10% of votes were flipped,  Sanders won CA with a 55% share.

On Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.8-43.2% in machine-counted mail-in ballots.  Sanders leads in hand-counted mail-ins by 51.1-48.9% (391,012-374,839 votes).  This indicates that approximately 14% of Sander’s machine votes were flipped to Clinton.  Sanders hand-counted vote share exceeded his machine-counted share in every CA county. Greg Palast explains why Bernie won California.

 TOTAL Clinton Sanders Margin
  RECORDED 53.5% 46.5% -6.9%
    TRUE VOTE 48.0% 52.0% 4.0%
CAUCUS Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
  36.1% 63.9% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
           
IA 50.1% 49.9% 50.1% 49.9% -0.3%
NV 52.7% 47.3% 52.7% 47.3% -5.3%
CO 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 18.8%
MN 38.4% 61.6% 38.4% 61.6% 23.3%
KS 32.3% 67.7% 32.3% 67.7% 35.5%
NE 42.9% 57.1% 42.9% 57.1% 14.3%
ME 35.6% 64.4% 35.6% 64.4% 28.7%
ID 22.0% 78.0% 22.0% 78.0% 56.0%
UT 20.7% 79.3% 20.7% 79.3% 58.6%
AK 18.4% 81.6% 18.4% 81.6% 63.3%
HI 30.1% 69.9% 30.1% 69.9% 39.8%
WA 27.1% 72.9% 27.1% 72.9% 45.7%
WY 45.3% 54.7% 45.3% 54.7% 9.4%
ND 28.5% 71.5% 28.5% 71.5% 43.0%
EXIT POLL   UNCTD VOTE  ADJUST  
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 54.0% 46.0% 51.7% 48.3% -3.5%
           
VT 13.0% 87.0% 12.0% 88.0% 76.0%
NH 39.6% 60.4% 37.4% 62.6% 25.1%
WI 37.0% 63.0% 34.9% 65.1% 30.2%
NC 56.3% 43.7% 54.1% 45.9% -8.2%
FL 64.0% 36.0% 61.8% 38.2% -23.7%
SC 68.7% 31.3% 66.7% 33.3% -33.4%
OH 51.9% 48.1% 49.6% 50.4% 0.7%
MI 46.8% 53.2% 44.6% 55.4% 10.8%
VA 62.4% 37.6% 60.3% 39.7% -20.6%
MS 83.4% 16.6% 82.1% 17.9% -64.2%
GA 65.7% 34.3% 63.6% 36.4% -27.3%
TX 61.5% 38.5% 59.3% 40.7% -18.7%
IL 48.8% 51.2% 46.6% 53.4% 6.9%
IN 44.6% 55.4% 42.4% 57.6% 15.2%
PA 54.7% 45.3% 52.5% 47.5% -4.9%
NY 52.0% 48.0% 49.7% 50.3% 0.5%
MA 46.7% 53.3% 44.5% 55.5% 11.1%
CT 51.6% 48.4% 49.4% 50.6% 1.3%
AZ 37.0% 63.0% 34.9% 65.1% 30.2%
AL 73.2% 26.8% 71.3% 28.7% -42.7%
TN 63.2% 36.8% 61.0% 39.0% -22.1%
AR 66.0% 34.0% 64.0% 36.0% -27.9%
MD 65.6% 34.4% 63.6% 36.4% -27.1%
MO 48.1% 51.9% 45.9% 54.1% 8.3%
OK 47.8% 52.2% 45.5% 54.5% 8.9%
WV 39.9% 60.1% 37.7% 62.3% 24.5%
NO EXIT POLL   UNCTD &  FLIPPED VOTE   
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 56.28% 43.72% 46.38% 53.62% 7.24%
CA 56.32% 43.68% 46.41% 53.59% 7.19%
KY 50.2% 49.8% 41.8% 58.2% 16.3%
MT 46.6% 53.4% 39.1% 60.9% 21.7%
NJ 63.2% 36.8% 51.5% 48.5% -3.1%
NM 51.5% 48.5% 42.8% 57.2% 14.4%
SD 51.0% 49.0% 42.4% 57.6% 15.1%
LA 75.4% 24.6% 60.7% 39.3% -21.5%
DE 60.4% 39.6% 49.5% 50.5% 1.1%
RI 44.1% 55.9% 37.2% 62.8% 25.5%
OR 43.3% 56.7% 36.7% 63.3% 26.7%
DC 79.5% 20.5% 63.8% 36.2% -27.6%

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 
14 Comments

Posted by on June 19, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Democratic primary exit polls were adjusted to match the recorded vote to within 0.06%

Richard Charnin
June 18, 2016

Richard Charnin

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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

Democratic primary exit polls were adjusted to match the recorded vote to within 0.06%. This confirms what we already know: Unadjusted exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote. The premise is that there is ZERO fraud in every election polled. View the adjusted polls: http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls

 Adjusted Exit Poll discrepancies from the recorded vote

The Gender crosstab is the basis for calculating  adjusted vote shares.  Exit poll naysayers proclaim that the exit polls are not designed to forecast a winner.  But the pollsters ask males and females who they just voted for. Isn’t that the same thing as forecasting the winner? 

View the calculations to determine the discrepancies in this spreadsheet:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1591963017

The average of the adjusted exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote is virtually zero – a perfect match. The  average margin of error is 3.5% for the 26 unadjusted polls.

Source:CNN Clinton Sanders Other
Average 0.06% -0.19% 0.20%
CT -1.48% 0.06% 1.42%
MD -2.57% -1.21% 3.78%
PA -0.50% -0.50% 1.00%
IN -0.38% 0.38%
AL -0.64% 0.61% 0.03%
AR 2.91% -0.72% -2.19%
FL 0.04% -0.76% 0.72%
GA 0.87% -1.36% 0.49%
IL -0.06% -0.04% 0.10%
IN -0.38% 0.38%
MA 0.75% -0.39% -0.36%
MI -0.42% -0.33% 0.75%
MO -0.10% 0.00% 0.10%
MS 0.21% -0.02% -0.19%
NC 0.20% 0.40% -0.60%
NH 0.60% 0.00% -0.60%
NY -0.32% 0.32%
OH -0.10% 0.50% -0.40%
OK -0.42% 0.59% -0.17%
SC 1.21% -0.71%
TN 1.37% -0.91% -0.46%
TX 1.02% -1.00% -0.02%
VA 0.12% -0.03% -0.09%
VT -0.06% 0.34%
WI -0.13% -0.55% 0.68%
WV -0.24% 0.02% 0.22%

Inline image

 
10 Comments

Posted by on June 18, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

2016 Democratic Primaries: Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

2016 Democratic Primaries:  Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

Richard Charnin
June 15, 2016

Richard Charnin

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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

This  is an excellent analysis of the Democratic primaries from Axel Geijsel of  Tilburg University -(The Netherlands) and  Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of  Stanford University  (U.S.A.) .

The authors compare exit poll and recorded results in two groups of states : 10 with paper trails and 14 without paper. They reference my exit poll spreadsheet and CVS graphs as well as the NY Times for the recorded vote data.

I added the following  calculations to the Democratic Primaries spreadsheet  referencing the Geijsel/Barrigan spreadsheet. Sanders did nearly 15% better in the 14 states with a paper trail  than the non-paper ballot states. He won the unadjusted exit polls in the 14 states by 5.2%, but lost the reported vote by 2.7%.

10 States No Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-10 65.36% 33.30% 32.06%
2-party Reported 66.25% 33.75% 32.49%
2-party Unadjusted 62.54% 37.46% 25.08%
2-party Discrepancy 3.71% -3.71% 7.41%
14 States Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-14 50.38% 47.75% 2.63%
2-party Reported 51.34% 48.66% 2.68%
2-party Unadjusted 47.40% 52.60% -5.20%
2-party Discrepancy 3.94% -3.94% 7.88%
Paper vs. No Paper (EP) -14.91% 14.91%

Steven D  of caucus99percent.com: posted this note: This is a very long post, and contains the response of the authors of the study,“Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America,” to critics who posted highly negative and derogatory comments to my initial blog post on this matter at Booman Tribune. Unless you are a stat geek, feel free to stop reading when you reach the section marked Attachment.  

The authors  responded to critics of the analysis:

Dear Steven,
In regards to your earlier email. The criticism that you forwarded to us can be divided in two parts. The first is that we should add additional data in our appendix (most of which we have available), the second is that we shouldn’t have used the exit poll data. The former we have no qualms with and will be more than happy to include, the latter is based on faulty information, and considering the vigor with which they mention it. We could not help but feel it was drivel. Especially given the fact that they linked to a website which was authored by someone who doesn’t know absolute basics of statistics.

Some of the sources coming from media-outlets, from which most of the writers in question knowing very little about statistics (certain articles kind of shocked me). An interesting one of the mentioned sources being from Nate Silver (fivethirtyeight), where he wrote a 10-part critique about exit polling: For which he did not go unscrutinized: .

He has received earlier criticism as well from different analysts. [; . And from anecdotal reference, he has been criticized many times more before too.

In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there’s a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they’re accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play.

Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it’s the latter. Though that’s our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place.

Corroborating studies and links being: (also a criticism on some of the above mentioned);; ; ; ; ;

I hope to have provided you with enough ammunition to feel somewhat at ease.

Kind regards,

Axel Geijsel

DATA SOURCES
The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 

 
7 Comments

Posted by on June 15, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Connecticut Primary: Did Clinton really win?

The Connecticut Primary: Did Clinton really win?

Richard Charnin
June 13, 2016

Richard Charnin

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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

Clinton won Connecticut by nearly 18,000 votes (51.8-46.4%).

Are we to believe that CT had just a 1.4% discrepancy as shown in the adjusted CNN exit poll  while its NY neighbor had an 11.8% discrepancy ?

Assuming this ABC news preliminary exit poll screenshot is legitimate, how does one explain the 21% discrepancy between the poll and the final recorded  vote?

The preliminary exit poll  is usually released around 4:30 pm and is  based on  approximately  two-thirds of total respondents. In the CT poll, there were 1234 respondents. Assuming 800 respondents,  the preliminary exit poll had a  4.5% margin of error. For Clinton’s share to increase by 12%  (nearly triple the MoE) for just 434 additional respondents is virtually mathematically impossible.

Vote shares  adjusted to match the final CNN exit poll

CNN Final    Exit Poll 1234 Respondents…  3.63% MoE  
Clinton Sanders Other
Men 39% 43% 55% 2%
women 61% 55% 41% 4%
Total 50.32% 46.46% 3.22%
2-party 51.99% 48.01%
Recorded 51.80% 46.40% 1.80%
Diff -1.48% 0.06% 1.42%
Votes 328,395 170,075 152,410 5,910
Margin 17,665

Vote shares  adjusted to match the preliminary ABC exit poll

Preliminary Exit Poll Clinton Sanders Other
Men 39% 25% 70% 5%
women 61% 50% 46% 4%
Total 40.25% 55.36% 4.39%
2-party 42.10% 57.90%
Recorded 51.80% 46.40% 1.80%
Diff -11.55% 8.96% 2.59%
Votes 328,395 132,179 181,799 14,417
Margin 49,620

Inline image

 
12 Comments

Posted by on June 13, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

Democratic primary: Sanders Approval ratings matching pre-election and exit polls indicate fraud

Democratic primary: Sanders’ approval ratings match to pre-election and exit polls indicate fraud

Richard Charnin
June 8, 2016

Richard Charnin

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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

This brief post will provide further evidence that Sanders is leading the total primary vote. It is based on the historical fact that approval ratings are highly correlated to national pre-election polls, exit polls and vote shares.

Clinton is leading by approximately 3 million votes (56-44%). But she has a 42% favorability rating. It is highly anomalous and counter-intuitive when compared to Sanders 49% rating.  Clinton’s  declining ratings are a source of worry for the DNC.

Current polls show that Sanders does better  than Clinton against  Trump.
Sanders vs. Trump  Clinton vs. Trump

The strong correlation of ratings and vote shares indicates Sanders is leading the True Vote by an estimated 1.7 million margin (53.5-46.5%). View Sanders’ favorable/unfavorable ratings.

Clinton favorable/unfavorable ratings – Real Clear Politics

Clinton Poll Date Sample
Favorable
Unfavorable
Spread
RCP Average 5/1 – 5/30 37.4 55.5 -18.1
Quinnipiac 5/24 – 5/30 1561 RV 37 57 -20
The Economist/YouGov* 5/20 – 5/23 2000 RV 43 54 -11
ABC News/Wash Post 5/16 – 5/19 829 RV 41 57 -16
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 5/15 – 5/19 1000 RV 34 54 -20
FOX News 5/14 – 5/17 1021 RV 37 61 -24
CBS News/NY Times 5/13 – 5/17 1109 RV 31 52 -21
Gallup 5/1 – 5/22 10598 A 40 54 -14
PPP (D) 5/6 – 5/9 1222 RV 36 55 -19

In a previous post,  the True Vote was estimated from actual caucus votes, exit polls, estimated manipulation of voter rolls, absentee and provisional ballots. Sanders leads by 51.5-48.5% (800,000 votes). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/democratic-primaries-is-clinton-leading-by-3-million-votes/

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries  exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000. The difference between his exit poll share and recorded share exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Sanders won 13 of 14 caucuses with an average 65.4% vote share and 9 of 36 primaries with a 43.9% average share. The probability of the 21.5% difference occurring by chance is 2.27% (the probability of election fraud is 97.73%).

Prob = 97.73% =normsdist (ZS), where ZS = 2.00 = .21/ sqrt(.135/36 +.109/14)
.135 is the standard deviation for the primaries
.109 is the standard deviation for the caucuses

Current polls show that Sanders does better  than Clinton against  Trump.
Sanders vs. Trump  Clinton vs. Trump

2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

In the 2004 election,  the Bush approval rating trend was highly correlated  (0.87) to his monthly pre-election polls. 

The UNADJUSTED STATE EXIT POLLS tracked closely to the STATE APPROVAL RATINGS. There was a near-perfect 0.99 CORRELATION  between the  polls and approval ratings.

 

 
21 Comments

Posted by on June 8, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?

Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?

Richard Charnin
May 28, 2016

Richard Charnin

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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

The 3 million Clinton vote margin is repeated endlessly by the media. This analysis shows that the number is grossly inflated. Sanders may very well be leading the popular vote and corresponding delegate count. This is an updated analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries.

This is why Sanders has done much better than his recorded vote:

– Actual votes in caucus states are not included in the count – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Exit polls indicated voting machines were hacked – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Voter rolls were manipulated – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Long lines and reduced polling stations reduced voter turnout – to the benefit of Clinton.

Sanders leads by approximately 780,000 votes (51.5-48.5%), assuming a) caucus votes are included, b) unadjusted exit polls represent the true vote, c) 10% of Sanders voters were disenfranchised and d) 5% of Clinton’s votes were fraudulent early/absentee ballots.  View the Democratic Primaries spread sheet.

Sanders won the caucuses easily. The largest states were MN, WA, CO. The actual votes were approximated by multiplying caucus vote shares by the state voting population, which is proportional to the electoral vote.

Votes for the primaries were calculated based on late exit polls. Sanders did approximately 4% better in the polls than in his recorded share. The National Election Pool discontinued exit polls after the Indiana primary.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries which were exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190.000. The difference between his exit poll share and recorded share exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? 

Exit polls and caucuses indicate that Sanders has won 30 of 44 states and leads the electoral vote by  259-193. Clinton’s margin is reduced from 3 million to 1.3 million based on actual caucus votes and unadjusted exit polls.

A conservative estimate is that  10% of Sanders voters were disenfranchised due to long lines, reduced polling stations, switched/dropped party registrations,  uncounted provisional ballots, etc.  And  5% of Clinton’s votes were due to absentee ballot stuffing. New York, Arizona, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts and the southern red states are prime examples.

After adjusting for actual caucus votes and exit polls:

Clinton has won 11 RED states (normally Republican) by 2.1 million votes (64-36%)- before voter rolls, absentee/provisional ballot fraud. Clinton leads RED states by approximately 1.6 million (61-39%).

Sanders leads the non-RED states by 1.1 million- before voter rolls, absentee/provisional ballot fraud. Sanders leads non-RED states by approximately 57-43%, a 2.4 million vote margin.

Sanders leads overall by approximately one million votes.

Recorded Vote

Clinton Sanders Margin Total Clinton Sanders Margin
12,985 9,981 3,004 22,966 56.5% 43.5% 13.0%

Exit Poll/ actual caucus votes

Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
12,864 11,816 1,048 52.1% 47.9% 4.2%

Other adjustments

  Sanders   Clinton   Margin
 Vote(000) Recorded 9,981 43.5% 12,985 56.5% -3,004
Exit Poll +Caucus  Adjusted  11,816 47.9% 12,864 52.1% -1,048
Other: Reg switch/flip+Absentee/ provisional Final Adjusted 12,998 (+10%) 51.5% 12,221   (-5%) 48.5% 777
TOTAL Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
PRIMARIES 56.5% 43.5% -13.0% 12,985 9,981 -3,004
RED STATES
South Carolina 68.7% 31.3% -37.3% 252 115 -137
Arkansas 66.0% 34.0% -32.0% 138 71 -67
Alabama 73.2% 26.8% -46.3% 283 104 -179
Tennessee 63.2% 36.8% -26.3% 231 135 -96
Virginia 62.4% 37.6% -24.9% 486 292 -194
Georgia 65.7% 34.3% -31.4% 498 260 -238
Texas 61.5% 38.5% -23.0% 868 543 -325
Louisiana 75.4% 24.6% -50.8% 222 72 -149
Mississippi 78.5% 21.5% -57.0% 182 36 -146
North Carolina 56.3% 43.7% -12.7% 607 470 -136
Florida 64.0% 36.0% -27.9% 1,064 600 -464

 

TOTAL Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
TOTAL (EP+Caucus) 52.1% 48.1% -3.8% 12,865 11,817 -1,048
RED States 64.2% 35.8% 28.3% 4,831 2,698 -2,133
OTHER States 46.8% 53.2% -6.3% 8,034 9,119 1,085
OTHER, net Disenfranchised  43.2% 56.8% -13.6% 7,632 10,031 2,398
RED, net Disenfranchised 60.7% 39.3% 21.5% 4,589 2,968 -1,622
Adjusted Total 48.5% 51.5% -3.1% 12,222 12,998 777
Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded vote share by at least the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries:AL AZ GA MA NY OH MS SC TX WI WV
The probability is 1 in 76.8 BILLION:
P = 1 – binomdist (10, 26, 0.025,true)
 
 Probability
26 Exit Polls
n P=1 in
1 2
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
Inline image

 

 

 
44 Comments

Posted by on May 28, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,291 other followers