RSS

2016 Election Model: Stein vs. Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Stein vs.Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson

Richard Charnin
July 27, 2016

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 Primary spread sheet

The model indicates that  Green Party candidate Jill Stein can win a fraud-free election, based on a) recent Party-ID surveys and b) assumed vote shares of Independents and Democrats. The model assumes that Stein is on the ballot in every state. 

Various scenarios are displayed given  Party-ID assumptions and corresponding vote shares. It is not a forecast. Click model to view the spreadsheet.  

Statistical  evidence  based on manipulated voter rolls (strip),  impossible exit poll discrepancies (flip) and Wikileaks DNC e-mails suggest that Sanders easily won the True Vote in the primaries. The election was stolen in every way imaginable. 

Base Case

The assumption is that Stein will win 45% of Independents, 35% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans.  This results in a 30.6% win  – and 318 electoral votes.

In 2014, the National Party ID split was: 41% Democratic, 35% Republican and 24% Independent.  In  the model, we assume the current 2016 split: 40% Independents, 32% Democratic and 28% Republicans. 

Calculation Methodology

1-2016 state Party-ID: based on the change from 2014 National Party ID to 2016.
Example 2014 Illinois Party ID: from 47D-35R-18I  to 37D-28R-35I
2-State vote shares: apply estimated National shares to the state Party-ID  mix.
3-Electoral Vote summed for each candidate.

BASE CASE

Party-ID Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 40% 45% 25% 10% 20%
Dem 32% 35% 50% 5% 10%
Repub 28% 5% 5% 75% 15%
Total 100% 30.6% 27.4% 26.6% 15.4%
Votes 129,106 39,506 35,375 34,342 19,882
Elect Vote 538 318 11 209 0

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

What if Stein’s share of Democrats and Independents varies from the base case scenario?

The tables show Stein and Trump vote shares and corresponding Stein margins for scenarios 31-39% of Democrats and 40-50% of Independents. The Base Case is in the central cell of each table.

Stein wins 13 of the 15 scenarios.

Stein % Dem
Stein % 31.0% 33.0% 35.0% 37.0% 39.0%
of Ind Stein
50% 31.3% 32.0% 32.6% 33.2% 33.9%
45% 29.3% 30.0% 30.6% 31.2% 31.9%
40% 27.3% 28.0% 28.6% 29.2% 29.9%
Trump
50% 25.9% 25.2% 24.6% 24.0% 23.3%
45% 27.9% 27.2% 26.6% 26.0% 25.3%
40% 29.9% 29.2% 28.6% 28.0% 27.3%
Stein Margin
50% 5.4% 6.7% 8.0% 9.3% 10.6%
45% 1.4% 2.7% 4.0% 5.3% 6.6%
40% -2.6% -1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 2.6%
Stein Vote Margin (000)
50% 7,023 8,676 10,328 11,981 13,634
45% 1,859 3,512 5,164 6,817 8,469
40% -3,305 -1,653 0 1,653 3,305

 

 
13 Comments

Posted by on July 27, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Entrance poll anomalies: the Iowa and Nevada Caucuses

Richard Charnin
July 25, 2016

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

Remember the IA and NV caucuses? They were both close, unlike  the 12 caucuses that came later in which Bernie won landslides.  

This analysis will show why the IA and NV True Votes are consistent  with the other 12 caucuses. Bernie may very well have won easily.

IA and NV had entrance polls which were adjusted  to matched the recorded vote.Clinton won the adjusted polls. NV:  52.7-47.3%  and IA:  50.1-49.9%  http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/NV/Dem
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/IA/Dem

But the Party-ID Pct mix of Democrats and Independents was heavily weighted to Democrats. Using the  current mix from 2016 Gallup surveys, Sanders wins NV:  58.5-41.5% and  IA: 60.1-39.9%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

So where were all the Independent voters?
The Nevada caucus was closed.
The Iowa caucus was semi-open.

NEVADA

True Vote
NV 2016 Party-ID Sanders Clinton
Ind 58.5% 71.0% 29.0%
Dem 41.5% 40.8% 59.2%
Total 100.0% 58.5% 41.5%
Recorded Vote 47.3% 52.7%

 

Entrance Poll
NV Party-ID Sanders Clinton
Ind 19% 71.0% 29.0%
Dem 81% 40.8% 59.2%
Total 100% 46.6% 53.4%
Recorded Vote 47.3% 52.7%

 

IOWA

True Vote  
IA 2016 Party-ID Sanders Clinton
Ind 68.2% 69.0% 31.0%
Dem 31.8% 41.1% 58.9%
Total 100.0% 60.1% 39.9%
Recorded Vote 49.9% 50.1%

Entrance Poll

IA Party-ID  Sanders Clinton
Ind 24% 69.0% 31.0%
Dem 76% 41.1% 58.9%
Total 100% 47.8% 52.2%
Recorded Vote 49.9% 50.1%

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 25, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

Democratic Primary Anomalies: The RED states

Democratic Primary Anomalies: The RED states

Richard Charnin
July 23, 2016

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

In the 11 RED states:
– Clinton had an average 70.4% recorded share
– Independents comprised approximately 58.6% of voters
(based on 2016 Party-ID surveys)

Gallup poll Party preference trend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Assume: Sanders won 55% of Independents in the RED states.
Clinton needed an IMPOSSIBLE 106% of Democrats in the RED states to match the recorded RED state vote.

RED states
………………Pct………Sanders….Clinton
IND…………58.6%……55.0%……45.0%
Dem ……….41.4%……-6.4%……106.4%
Recorded…100.0%……29.6%……70.4%

Assume: Sanders won 45% of independents in the RED states.
Clinton needed an IMPLAUSIBLE 92% of Democrats in the RED states to match the recorded RED state vote.

….2-party… Sanders
…..IND…….Recorded Vote
Avg 58.6%… 29.6%

AL 57.6%… 19.8%
AR 57.5%… 31.0%
FL 59.3%… 34.1%
GA 55.7%… 28.3%
LA 73.4%… 24.6%
MS 55.5%… 16.6%
NC 58.0%… 42.8%
SC 55.2%… 26.1%
TN 58.5%… 32.9%
TX 58.8%… 33.7%
VA 55.0%… 35.4%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

 
2 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2016 Primary Exit Polls Party-ID: forcing a match to the recorded vote

2016 Primary Exit Polls Party-ID: forcing a match to the recorded vote

Richard Charnin
July 22, 2016

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  analysis seeks to determine an approximate True Vote in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

Clinton led the average of the adjusted exit polls (which were forced to match the recorded vote) by 56.4-43.6%. But there has been a significant increase in Independents tn National Party-ID statistics since 2014.

2014 National Party-ID: Dem 40.5 – Rep 35.2 – Ind 24.2%
2-party mix: Dem 62.6 – Ind 37.4%

Note the 19% increase in Independents since 2014:

2016 National Party-ID: Dem 32 -Rep 25 -Ind 43%
2-party mix: Ind 57.3- Dem 42.7%.

Gallup poll Party preference trend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

In the exit polled primaries, Sanders had a 51.3% True Vote and a 43.6% Recorded Vote.

The calculation of the True Vote differs from the Recorded Vote (adjusted Exit poll) in just one aspect: Independent and Democratic weights are based on the actual 2016 Party-ID mix in which independents comprise 57.3% and Democrats just 42.7% of the two-party mix. Sanders vote shares are unchanged.

In other words the True Vote assumes that no voters were disenfranchised and/or removed from the rolls.

The 2016  Party-ID  mix for each state is estimated by applying the equivalent proportional change from the 2014 National Party-ID to the 2016 National Party ID.

Let’s compare the the 2016 Party-ID effect on vote shares to the adjusted exit poll Party-ID weights  in three primaries: NY, MA, WI.

Candidate vote shares are held constant. The only difference between the adjusted exit poll (which was forced to match the recorded vote) and the True Vote  is the Party-ID mix. Sanders does significantly better when the 2016 Party-ID percentages are used.

View the exit polls here:
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/NY/Dem

View the spreadsheet calculations here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

NY Primary Exit poll matched to the recorded vote

Party ID Pct Clinton Sanders
Dem 83% 62% 38%
Ind 14% 28% 72%
Vote  97% 55.4% 41.6%
2-party  100% 57.1% 42.9%

NY True Vote

2016 PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 47% 62% 38%
Ind 53% 28% 72%
2-party 44.0% 56.0%

MA Primary Exit poll matched to the recorded vote

Party ID Pct Clinton Sanders
Dem 65% 60% 40%
Ind 33% 33% 66%
Vote   98% 49.9% 47.8%
2-party 100% 51.1% 48.9%

MA True Vote

2016 PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 30% 60% 40%
Ind 70% 33% 66%
2-party 41.2 58.8%

WI Primary Exit poll matched to the recorded vote

PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 71% 50% 50%
Ind 27% 28% 72%
Vote 43.1% 54.9%
2-party 43.9% 56.1%

WI True Vote

2016 PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 48% 50% 50%
Ind 52% 28% 72%
2-party 38.5% 61.5%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/pubchart?oid=244472232&format=image

 Sanders True Vote (2016 Party-ID) Exit Poll (Recorded)
AL 30.6% 19.8%
AR 39.8% 31.0%
CT 62.3% 47.4%
FL 44.1% 34.1%
GA 36.6% 28.3%
IA 60.1% 49.9%
IL 55.9% 49.1%
IN 61.4% 52.4%
MA 58.1% 49.3%
MD 40.0% 34.5%
MI 56.8% 50.8%
MO 56.9% 49.9%
MS 24.3% 16.6%
NC 48.1% 42.8%
NH 67.3% 61.4%
NV 58.5% 47.3%
NY 56.0% 42.1%
OH 51.9% 43.1%
OK 57.1% 55.5%
PA 54.0% 43.9%
SC 38.2% 26.1%
TN 42.4% 32.9%
TX 40.9% 33.7%
VA 45.0% 35.4%
VT 87.2% 86.3%
WI 61.5% 56.7%
WV 53.0% 51.4%

 

 
8 Comments

Posted by on July 22, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

Exit Poll Party-ID: Sanders vs. Clinton

Richard Charnin
July 17,  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

The model  calculates Sanders vs. Clinton True Vote vote shares based on the latest  Party-ID preference polls of Independent and Democratic voters.  Note that in just two years, Independents  have increased from 24.2% to  43% of the electorate.  They represent 57.3% of the 2-party preference mix. 

2014      2016    
Dem Ind Ind/ (Ind+  Dem)  Dem Ind Ind/ (Ind+ Dem)
40.5% 24.2% 37.4%  32% 43% 57.3%

Election fraud cost Sanders the primaries.  

Independents voted heavily for Sanders. The impossible/implausible Sanders and Clinton shares of Democrats that were required to match the recorded vote proves that the recorded vote was also impossible/implausible.

Given:
25 adjusted primary exit polls and 2 entrance polls (IA and NV) and
1- Independent and Democratic Party-ID mix
2- Recorded Primary vote shares
3- Sanders’ share of Independents (adjusted state primary exit poll)

Gallup Poll Party preference trend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Calculate:
Sanders’ share of Democrats required to match the primary recorded vote

Results:
The required share is impossible (-16% < 1%) in 7 primares:
AL CT SC MS AR FL IA

The required share is implausible (2 < 18%) in 11 primaries:
 TN GA TX NV VA NY MA NC MD OH PA

The required share is plausible (> 25%) in 9 primaries:
IN NH MI IL WV MO OK WI  VT

Example: In Massachusetts, Sanders had 66.7% of Independents. He had to have an implausibly low 9.1% of Democrats to match his 49.3% share. If he had 25%, he would have won the primary with 54%.


MA……… Pct Sanders Clinton
IND……. 69.8% 66.7% 33.3%
Dem……. 30.2%  9.1% 90.9%
Total….. 100%  49.3% 50.7%
Recorded…….. 49.3% 50.7%

———————————————–

Simple California Vote share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

CA Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

……………………………………………………………………………..

Sensitivity Analysis I and II
1-Independents comprise 55% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
2-Sanders has 45% of Democrats and 65% of Independents.
Base Case: Sanders wins by 56-44%

Sensitivity Analysis I
1-Sanders has 45% of Democrats (held constant).
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Independents range from 45-65% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
Result: Sanders wins 24 of 25 Scenarios.

Sensitivity Analysis II
1-Sanders has 35-55% of Democrats.
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Party-ID: Independents 55%; Democrats 45% (held constant).
Result: Sanders wins 22 of 25 Scenarios..

Sensitivity I          
Sanders% DEM  45%   IND    
  45% 50% 55% 60% 65%
Sanders% IND   Sanders Vote share
75% 59% 60% 62% 63% 65%
70% 56% 58% 59% 60% 61%
65% 54% 55% 56% 57% 58%
60% 52% 53% 53% 54% 55%
55% 50% 50% 51% 51% 52%
Sensitivity II          
Independents 55%   Sanders% IND    
  55% 60% 65% 70% 75%
Sanders% DEM   Sanders Vote share
55% 55% 58% 61% 63% 66%
50% 53% 56% 58% 61% 64%
45% 51% 53% 56% 59% 62%
40% 48% 51% 54% 57% 59%
35% 46% 49% 52% 54% 57%

View the spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

 

 

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on July 17, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Confirmation: Bernie won California by at least 100,000 votes

Richard Charnin
July 10, 2016

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

Richard Charnin

On Election Day (6/7) Hillary led by 56.37 – 43.63%

According to Greg Palast: Bernie won CA by at least 100,000 votes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/27/still-sanders-activists-cling-to-hope-of-flipping-california/  

“They said, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton has won by 400,000 votes,” Palast said of the media. “Now, I want you to say this number with me: 1,959,900. That’s the number of ballots that were not yet counted. How do you say an election’s over when there are 2 million ballots left to count?”

According to Palast, those ballots had the potential to flip the election. Based on a call to the secretary of state’s office, he estimated that all of the outstanding ballots were from “no party preference” voters; based on a pre-primary poll, he estimated a 40 percentage point margin for Sanders among those ballots.

“Bernie Sanders got at least 1.25 million votes from that pile,” Palast said. “The good news is that Bernie won California. … If you count every ballot, Sanders would win by 100,000.”

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.

California primary early vote by mail exit poll

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. During the polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton had a lead over Bernie Sanders in the Los Angeles area that was less than 10 percent. Election Justice USA, a voter advocacy non-profit organization, says that the discrepancy is significant enough to demand a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.

 “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.”

 

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis 

When California county votes are sorted and cumulated from smallest to largest counties,  they confirm the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share in the larger counties . One would intuitively expect that  the progressive candidate (Sanders) would gain share in the vote-rich urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in small  (conservative) counties but not as well in large counties is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping.

Simple California Vote share Model

Assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis- What if Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

 

Covert Shredding of Provisional Ballots

A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots were illegally destroyed   in a covert shredding operation.  A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.

The truck bearing the slogan: Because the Outcome has to be Certain!!!

White-out Erasing of Sanders Ballots

 Election monitors in San Diego   have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the film, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. The mainstream media has yet to report on the startling discovery.

After the Illinois Democratic primary in March, a citizens’ watchdog group monitoring an audit of the votes says they witnessed vote totals being tampered with to benefit Hillary Clinton.

In other video captured by citizen reporters and election monitors in San Diego, an election official attempts to keep monitors away from the windows of a room where “provisional” ballots are being counted by officials. They  were cast mostly by independent voters in the primary. At one point an election monitor, a woman, is told by an official to keep her voice down. The election monitor questions what the officials seen through the glass in an off-limits room are doing in the back. The woman tells the official that “you guys are violating the election code, and I’m not going to shut up about it.”

In a follow up interview, Charlie Loomis, the IT manager,  confirms that it is indeed white-out that can be seen on the ballots, and that the ballots are being “manipulated.” The IT manager goes on to say that, as a San Diego official, he has no control over this; the white-outs are a result of Democratic party rules on how these  provisional ballots must be processed.  Loomis said he has “nothing to do with” those rules. He did indicate, however, that after the white-out process, the ballots are “run through the scanner again.”

View the numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=71934428

Date Range Votes HRC Sanders HRC Sanders
Elec Day June 7 early 1,520,626 951,304 557,005 62.56% 36.63%
June 7 late 1,949,824 977,447 945,080 50.73% 48.47%
Elec Day Total 3,470,450 1,928,750 1,502,085 55.58% 43.28%
June 8-23 Vote by Mail 1,313,293 645,090 652,707 49.12% 49.70%
June 7-23 Total 4,783,743 2,573,840 2,154,792 53.80% 45.04%
June 9-23 Provisionl 301,824 120,247 179,163 39.84% 59.36%
Est Provis. 100,000 33,280 66,000 33.28% 66.00%
NPP 995,000 288,550 706,450 29.00% 71.00%
Total 1,396,824 442,077 951,613 31.65% 68.13%
Total 6,180,567 3,015,917 3,106,404 48.80% 50.26%
        90,488   1.46%
Update            
Brakey  Estimated 6,180,567
6/7 EDay Counted 3,470,450
Unctd 2,710,117
7/7 Unctd Counted 2,353,152
Remaining Unctd 356,965
Missing 686,210
7/7 Unctd+ missing 1,043,175
75% Sanders 782,381 Uncounted + missing
25% Clinton 260,794 Uncounted + missing
Sanders gain 521,588
Clinton margin 426,665 on June 7
Sanders margin 94,922 on July 7
Greg Palast Sanders margin 100,000

 

 
17 Comments

Posted by on July 10, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

California Primary: Bernie leads in Vote Counts since Election Day

California Primary: County Votes 

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 21, 2016

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

Richard Charnin

On Election Day (6/7) Hillary led by 56.37 – 43.63%.
Since Election Day, Bernie leads by 52.66 – 47.34%.  

Bernie’s vote share has increased over his Election Day share in every county.

In Humboldt County, the only county with Open Source Vote counting software, Bernie has a 71% two-party share, his highest in the 58 CA counties. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/county/humboldt/

Period………….. Votes………………Sanders……….Clinton
Elec Day (6/7)… 3,442,623………1,502,043………1,940,580
…………………………………………..43.63%…………56.37%
Current (7/6)…..5,097,033………2,373,218………2,723,815
…………………………………………..46.56%………… 53.44%
6/8 to 7/6……….1,654,410………..871,175…………783,235
…………………………………………..52.66%…………47.34%

Election Day and Post-election Democratic primary votes and shares :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420

Simple California Vote share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

 

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis  of California counties, sorted from smallest to largest, confirms the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share. One would intuitively expect that  the more progressive candidate (Sanders) would slightly gain cumulative vote share in the largest (typically liberal) urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in smaller, (typically conservative) counties, is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping in larger counties.

J.T. Waldron in electionnightmares.com:  After painstaking construction of spreadsheet data comparing batches of California 2016 Primary Election ballots counted from election day until now, elections expert John Brakey has found a pattern that is consistent with a technique that is aptly named the “strip, stack and hack” approach to election fraud.

Brakey believes California election officials, in conjunction with their vendors, managed to “strip” the vote by rendering people ineligible to use a regular ballot prior to the election, “stack” likely Clinton voters to be counted first on election day and “hack” the batch of votes to be counted later without an audit.

After more than 700,000 California voters were stripped from being counted in a timely manner when forced to vote on a provisional ballot, vote-by-mail ballots from likely Clinton voters were stacked into the piles to be counted first. This enabled the establishment to report a huge 26% election night lead by Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, which would quietly be reduced to a still shrinking single digit lead as remaining ballots continue to be counted.

A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots were illegally destroyed   in a covert shredding operation.  A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.

In addition, http://embols.com/2016/07/06/ballots-with-sanders-votes-covered-with-white-out-filmed-by-election-monitors-in-san-diego/ “Citizen election monitors in San Diego have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with, with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the film, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. 

The mainstream media has yet to report on the startling discovery.

After the Illinois Democratic primary in March, a citizens’ watchdog group monitoring an audit of the votes says they witnessed vote totals being tampered with to benefit Hillary Clinton.

In other video captured by citizen reporters and election monitors in San Diego, an election official attempts to keep monitors away from the windows of a room where “provisional” ballots are being counted by officials, which are ballots which were cast mostly by independent voters in the primary. At one point an election monitor, a woman, is told by an official who identifies herself as “Karen Mayer,” to keep her voice down, as she questions what officials through the glass in an off-limits room are doing in the back. The woman tells the official that “you guys are violating the election code, and I’m not going to shut up about it.”

In a follow up interview of another official, “Charlie Loomis,” the IT manager, the manager confirms that it is indeed white-out that can be seen on the ballots, and that the ballots are being “manipulated.” The IT manager goes on to say that, as a San Diego official, he has no control over this, as the white-outs are a result of Democratic party rules on how the ballots, which are provisional ballots, must be processed. Mr. Loomis say he has “nothing to do with” those rules. Mr. Loomis did indicate, however, that after the white-out process, the ballots are “run through the scanner again.”

View a running  total  of the number and percent of newly added voters (does not include 0.8% other Democratic candidates).

Sanders 2-party Vote Share
* recent update

Sanders Election Day Current Difference
CALIFORNIA 43.63% 46.56% 2.93%
ALAMEDA 46.0% 51.7% 5.7%
ALPINE 54.0% 54.8% 0.8%
AMADOR 47.4% 48.7% 1.3%
BUTTE 59.6% 62.7% 3.1%
CALAVERAS 47.6% 49.5% 1.9%
COLUSA 47.2% 49.2% 2.0%
CONTRA COSTA* 40.2% 43.0% 2.8%
DEL NORTE 56.6% 58.8% 2.2%
EL DORADO 47.8% 49.7% 1.9%
FRESNO 39.7% 43.3% 3.6%
GLENN 49.8% 52.4% 2.6%
HUMBOLDT* 68.7% 71.0% 2.3%
IMPERIAL 32.2% 34.2% 2.0%
INYO 55.9% 56.7% 0.9%
KERN 41.4% 44.8% 3.4%
KINGS 39.4% 40.9% 1.5%
LAKE 52.9% 52.9% 0.0%
LASSEN 52.7% 55.7% 3.0%
LOS ANGELES 42.4% 45.1% 2.7%
MADERA 42.9% 45.5% 2.6%
MARIN 42.2% 43.4% 1.3%
MARIPOSA 52.2% 55.1% 3.0%
MENDOCINO 63.4% 67.0% 3.6%
MERCED 42.0% 46.1% 4.1%
MODOC 53.8% 55.4% 1.6%
MONO 54.8% 56.5% 1.7%
MONTEREY 43.0% 46.7% 3.8%
NAPA 39.3% 46.2% 6.9%
NEVADA * 60.2% 61.4% 1.2%
ORANGE 44.9% 47.7% 2.8%
PLACER* 42.5% 45.3% 2.8%
PLUMAS 55.0% 54.9% 0.0%
RIVERSIDE * 39.4% 43.3% 3.9%
SACRAMENTO 42.6% 44.9% 2.3%
SAN BERNARDINO 42.1% 44.7% 2.6%
SAN BENITO 41.6% 45.1% 3.5%
SAN DIEGO * 44.5% 48.1% 3.6%
SAN FRANCISCO 44.1% 46.1% 2.0%
SAN JOAQUIN 39.4% 42.7% 3.3%
SAN LUIS OBISPO 49.0% 52.9% 4.0%
SAN MATEO 38.8% 40.8% 2.0%
SANTA BARBARA* 49.4% 52.8% 3.4%
SANTA CLARA 39.1% 42.1% 3.1%
SANTA CRUZ * 55.6% 59.3% 3.7%
SHASTA 51.1% 53.6% 2.5%
SIERRA 56.4% 57.0% 0.7%
SISKIYOU 59.2% 61.2% 2.0%
SOLANO 42.7% 44.2% 1.5%
SONOMA 48.7% 48.7% 0.0%
STANISLAUS 44.1% 47.9% 3.8%
SUTTER * 44.4% 46.3% 1.8%
TEHAMA 50.9% 52.8% 1.9%
TRINITY 62.0% 64.3% 2.3%
TULARE * 40.7% 44.6% 3.9%
TUOLUMNE 47.9% 51.1% 3.2%
VENTURA 45.7% 48.4% 2.7%
YOLO 47.9% 51.5% 3.7%
YUBA 52.4% 53.7% 1.3%

 

 

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 6, 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 2,582 other followers