MA 2016 Primary: Unadjusted Exit poll Indicates Bernie won

02 Mar

Richard Charnin
Mar.8, 2016 (updated for AAPOR link)

Late changes to the MA Democratic Primary exit poll indicate that the election was likely stolen. As always, the exit poll was adjusted to match the recorded vote.

Sanders led the Unadjusted MA Exit Poll Gender crosstab  (1297 respondents) by 52.3-45.7%. The poll was captured from CNN at 8:01pm .

Clinton led the adjusted exit poll (1406 respondents) by 50.3-48.7%,  a near-exact match to the 1.4%  RECORDED vote margin.  But her 50.3% share was IMPOSSIBLE.  The proof is self-explanatory: How could Clinton gain  114 respondents and Sanders just 7 among the final 109 exit poll respondents?

Clinton won  by 51-49% on electronic voting machines from ES&S, Diebold and Dominion.  Sanders won 68  hand-counted precincts by 58-41%.   He won 250 of  351 jurisdictions and had at least 58% in 110. 

The probability is  97%  that Sanders won the election given the 3.55% Margin of Error. The MoE includes the exit poll cluster effect  (30% of the 2.72% calculated MoE). Sanders 53.4% two-party share and the MoE are input to the Normal distribution function to calculate his win probability:

P = 97% = Normdist (.534, 0.5, 1.3* MoE/1.96,true)

Recent Massachusetts elections are highly suspect and show similar anomalies. The True Vote and Registered Voter Turnout models and CVS analysis  indicate to a near 100% probability that the 2014 MA Governor election was stolen from Coakley (D).

In the special 2010 senate election for Sen. Kennedy’s seat, Coakley   won the 71 hand-counted precincts  with 51.1% of the vote (32,247) to Brown’s 47.8% (30,136).
Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S and 187 Diebold locations.

In the 2008 MA primary, Clinton snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, overcoming an Obama 8 point lead in the final pre-election polls. Obama won the hand-counted precincts by the same 5% that Clinton won the machine counts: 52-47% 

The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) discusses the matching process in Explaining Exit Polls. But they never mention election fraud as a likely cause of the discrepancies. In actuality the adjusted exit poll crosstabs contaminate the true statistical results and  are misleading as they do not reflect the the actual responses of those exit polled. 

” In close races, the projection models also employ actual vote totals, first in sample precincts as it becomes available and then at the county level for all counties in a state as they become available. It is important to note that after the votes have been counted, the exit poll results are adjusted to match the actual election outcomes. It is in this way that the final exit poll data can be used for its primary and most important purpose – to shed light on why the election turned out the way it did”.

Exit pollsters at Edison Research should not be making adjustments. But it is standard operating procedure.  Why?  It is unscientific and hides the actual exit poll results. It serves to cover-up the fraud which is measured by the recorded vote discrepancy (view the 2004 and 2008 National Exit Polls below).


CNN UNADJUSTED MA Exit Poll: 8:01PM (1297 respondents, 3.55% MoE)

 Gender Pct Sanders Clinton Other
Male 42.0% 61.0% 37.0% 2.0%
Female 58.0% 46.0% 52.0% 2.0%
 True Vote 100.0% 52.3% 45.7% 2.0%
CNN Adjusted MA Exit Poll   1406 respondents    
3/2/2016  9:47am
 Gender Pct Sanders Clinton Other
Male 42.0% 58.0% 41.0% 1.0%
Female 58.0% 42.0% 57.0% 1.0%
Recorded Vote 100.0% 48.7% 50.3% 1.0%


Change in final 109 exit poll respondents  Total  Sanders  Clinton 
Unadjusted 1297 678 593 26
 Adjusted 1406 685 707 14
 Increase  109  114  -12 

Ted Soares provided the following Exit Poll vs. Reported vote table on the Election Integrity Forum. Discrepancies in eight of nine exit polls favored Clinton in the reported vote.  The average margin discrepancy  was 8.5%, The 4.25% vote share discrepancy is far beyond the  9-poll margin of error (approximately 2%).

Cumulative Vote Shares

The diverging lines  confirm the unadjusted exit poll and indicate fraud.  Clinton’s cumulative vote share increases going from small to large towns. The vote shares should be nearly constant. At the 10% CVS mark, Sanders had 57%. He had  54% at the 25% mark. View the Town Precinct vote data.

National Exit Poll manipulation 

In 2004   Kerry led  the National Exit poll by 51-48% after the first 13047 respondents, but Bush had 50.8-48.3% (the recorded vote) at 13,660 respondents. When the unadjusted exit poll became available years later, it showed that Kerry won the 13,660 by 51.7-47.0%. 

The pollsters had to switch 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to  match the recorded vote.  Kerry had 51% at 4pm (8,349 respondents). His exit poll share increased to 51.7% at the final 13,660. 

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll… Margin of error: 1.1% 
Respondents Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
Total 51.7% 47.0% 1.3%

In 2008  Obama had 61% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents), but just a 52.9% recorded share. The pollsters had to reduce Obama’s respondents  from 10873 to 9430 (13.3%) in order to force a match to his 52.9% recorded vote.  

Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll … Margin of error: 0.93%.

Respondents Obama McCain Other
17,836 10,873 6,641 322
Total 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%


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 (E-book)

Election Fraud Overview



Posted by on March 2, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,

76 responses to “MA 2016 Primary: Unadjusted Exit poll Indicates Bernie won

  1. Bev

    March 3, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Just wanted to let you know Richard, that I posted your article above on two different sites that usually take my comments, but did not this time with your material. I don’t know if these sites are self censoring or if some “middle man” is censoring your material. Let’s see if they are found later on these sites:

    Naked Capitalism

    Bernie Supporters, Democracy Supporters and Journalists who want a Democracy should read your site.

    • Richard Charnin

      March 3, 2016 at 3:37 pm

      Thanks Bev,

      I’m surprised they won’t post. It may be that since the post went viral on my blog, they are cracking down under pressure.
      There is a clear trend to censor articles on so-called alternative media that go against the establishment.
      Let’s see what happens.

      Thanks for helping my posts get out there.

      • Rebecka Justice

        April 30, 2016 at 2:25 pm

        This should be tweeted, RT forever. Now we see exactly how HRC got so many more ‘votes?’

  2. Bev

    March 3, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    No, thank you Richard. You are the one doing the hard work for Democracy’s sake. I am just repeating it elsewhere. It is my responsibility and pleasure.

  3. Bev

    March 3, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    Well, Naked Capitalism now has your link from the most stripped down version of 3 comments that I over time tried to post, and a good question in response was asked:

    Thanks for posting. This is important. And very disturbing!

    I don’t understand why exit poll numbers are ‘adjusted’, unless it’s to conceal corruption.


    • Richard Charnin

      March 3, 2016 at 10:25 pm

      It’s as simple as that. Supreme corruption which assumes zero election fraud.

  4. Schtthub

    March 3, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    Naked Capitalism does have a time lag on comments, and the site does sometimes censor but it’s rare. I see talk of taboo topics at times in the comments.

    Washingtons Blog generally carries exactly this kind of material.

    We’ve seen this small-to-large divergence before of course. For anyone just tuning in,electronic voting machines are FOR voting fraud. This is WHY they exist.

  5. catstandish

    March 3, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    I don’t understand this. Are they trying to say that the actual votes were changed so the exit polls had to be adjusted to match?

  6. Kip de Moll

    March 3, 2016 at 9:23 pm

    yes, I also am wondering WHY would adjustments be made?

    • Richard Charnin

      March 3, 2016 at 10:33 pm

      The polls are created by Edison Research, which is funded by the National Election Pool. The NEP is made up of six major media giants.
      Adjustments are made to the exit polls to force them to match the recorded vote. This is standard operating procedure.
      The NEP never acknowledges Election Fraud as the cause of the discrepancies.
      They want the public to believe that there is ZERO fraud and therefore they adjust the polls.
      But… the Recorded Vote = Unadjusted exit poll + fraud factor (discrepancy)

  7. Kip de Moll

    March 3, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    Yes, my question as well: WHY are they adjusted and WHO did the polls?

  8. Matt

    March 4, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    I would like a reference for the un-adjusted exit polls (screen shots, at least) and the adjusted ones. It would certainly make the post worthy of repeating. Lacking citation, however, it reads more like a plausible theory to some, (a likely one to me), and kooky conspiracy stuff to the electorate at large.

    • Richard Charnin

      March 4, 2016 at 3:33 pm

      The CNN exit polls for Massachusetts were downloaded on March 1, 2016 at 8:01PM, shows Sanders winning 52% to 46% for Clinton.

      The vote totals are calculated from the Gender totals. For example: the Clinton proportion of the male vote (37%) is multiplied with the proportion of the male electorate (42%) to arrive at the proportion of all voting for her: 16% male and 30% female for a total of 46% total votes.

      The CNN exit polls adjusted the gender totals to conform to the announced vote count. The adjusted exit poll shows Clinton winning 50.3% to 48.7% for Sanders, closely conforming to the announced final vote tally of 50.1% for Clinton to 48.7% for Sanders.

      • matt

        March 4, 2016 at 11:01 pm

        So would this explain the AP calling the state for Sanders when reporting reached 90% or was that gaff likely unrelated?
        Yes, it would…

  9. Bev

    March 4, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    a response from Naked Capitalism’s Lambert Strether, if you would be so kind to address:

    Lambert Strether March 4, 2016 at 2:26 am 

    It’s just a poll, a survey. Sampling gets adjusted all the time.
If the ballot counts are off, well, there needs to be some evidence of election fraud.

  10. Richard Charnin

    March 4, 2016 at 3:30 pm


    The evidence which proves election fraud is that the deviations are in one-direction only.
    For example, in 1988-2008, 135 of 274 state presidential exit polls exceeded the margin of error.
    At the 95% confidence level, only 14 would be expected.

    Of the 135 which exceeded the MoE, 131 red-shifted to the GOP candidate.
    The joint probability of the exit poll deviations to the GOP is E-100.

    Adjusting the exit polls is standard operating procedure. The polls are always adjusted to match the recorded vote.
    You apparently believe that there is nothing wrong with this.

    If you believe the polls are adjusted to correct polling errors, that is your choice.

    If you believe that the adjustments do not indicate complicity on the part of the National Election Pool (which funds the pollsters) to cover up election fraud, that is also your choice.

    If you believe the E-100 probability of 131 of 135 exit polls exceeding the margin of error in favor of the GOP is just due to chance, well, then…

    I suggest you take a close look at the analysis.
    The mathematics is truth.
    And Truth Is All

  11. Becca

    March 4, 2016 at 9:37 pm

    My only question is what do we do about it? The American people are being cheated out of our justice system, how do we help get the delegates we wrongfully lost back?

    • Tim

      May 11, 2016 at 3:07 pm

      seriously, how do we get the UN to monitor our elections, what does it take?

  12. lareinov2nd

    March 5, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Reblogged this on lareinov2nddotcom.

  13. Bev

    March 5, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Here is a good start just offered up by Bernie Sanders, though getting rid of the evidence stripping/hidding e-voting, e-scanning machines owned and operated by the extreme, abusive right with ties to the intelligence community, to finally return as some communities already have, to real evidence of hand counted paper ballots posted in precinct on caucus (a show of hands is also real evidence if counted correctly), primary, election night. Real evidence makes stealing elections much harder than these machines with their now push button theft. Democrats should pull their approval of these machines now or be seen as lackeys of the extreme, abusive right.
    Bernie Sanders
    on Google
    We need your help today! When you vote, report delegate counts from your caucuses and turnout from your precincts.

  14. Bev

    March 5, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    Here is a start:
    Bernie Sanders
    on Google
    We need your help today! When you vote, report delegate counts from your caucuses and turnout from your precincts.

  15. Adam Romanowski

    March 5, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    Great analysis. I’ve posted this on facebook and it’s been shared over 200 times. If you have more insight please let me know. I need linkable material. Some people have reported votes reduced from Bernie Sanders in various counties after results hit 100%. Of course never for Clinton.

  16. Elizabeth

    March 8, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Are we so numbed to corruption, that we are just going to turn a blind eye to this obvious felony. An investigation needs to be started and people charged.

  17. Wanda Metcalf

    March 8, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    Given this, I would like to go down to my town office tomorrow and file a complaint. How should I go about demanding a recount? How do I prevent fraud and get accountability Nov.? Please advise, as I do intend to start whatever process is necessary.

    Wanda Metcalf

    • Richard Charnin

      March 9, 2016 at 12:30 am

      Wanda, I can’t help you there. I never get involved in such matters. I just focus on analysis to prove fraud.
      I suggest you google ‘demanding an election recount’.

      Many activists (especially in Wisconsin) have been trying to get accountability from election officials and the courts – with limited success. Go to your town elections office and contact your state election officials. Maybe they can provide the information you are looking for.


    • LGa

      March 9, 2016 at 3:59 pm

      This is both important& frustrating.
      One could start a petition to have a re ount. But my undersranding is that there were similar problems in Iowa?

  18. Bev

    March 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    More verification please:

    Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17%

    J.T. Waldron

    Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state’s 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %.

  19. Bev

    March 10, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Hopefully not a repeat, but server what disconnected will sending comment….

    Bernie has said he wants hand counted Paper Ballots. We must try to accomplish that goal as soon as possible during these primaries. Perhaps turning all primaries to caucuses which head or hand count people could be done and is real evidence so long as counted by several people to verify. Or, is any lawyer or citizen able to put an injunction on those right wing e-voting, e-scanning machines for fraud?

    And, cheating seems to be widespread and taking many different forms all in one direction, and as such, adds further verification to the need for reform as soon as possible:

    Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s Super Delegate Fraud.
    The AP headline read: Super delegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss.

    It was and is a complete fabrication. Another way of putting it would be fraud. Initiated by Clinton and the DNC and unfortunately aided and abetted by two ignorant AP reporters (and others like CNN) who didn’t know ( or maybe didn’t care) that they were being snookered and simply swallowed what was thrown at them. It would help if people who actually think they are reporters would check DNC rules regarding the use of super delegates. Especially since there has only been one time in the history of the Democratic party that super delegates ever cast a vote and that was 32 years ago in 1984. And even then it was to affirm the candidate who won the most pledged delegates in the primaries.

    So why is Hillary Clinton putting out the fiction that she is ahead on delegates even though she isn’t because of super delegates? Because she is being underhanded and so is the DNC run by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Obama’s hand picked chair of the DNC who are trying to build a phony aura of expectation and inevitability and the illusion that she will be the nominee and then if she doesn’t have the actual votes from the primary battles try and steal the nomination by using super delegates with Obama and Wasserman-Schultz driving the getaway car.

    The New York Times acting like the long arm of the law put their arm on Clinton in a recent editorial making it clear that super delegates can have no role in the outcome of the nomination which needs to be decided by whoever wins the most delegates in the primaries.

    Make it clear that if Clinton can’t win honestly she is not going to win at all.

    NOTE: CNN is still showing super delegate totals for Clinton included with her pledged delegate totals that don’t actually exist and may never exist and for now and until the convention and they are cast, if ever, are pure fiction. John King is one of the worst offenders but so is Wolf Blitzer. The Sanders campaign needs to hold them and other media outlets accountable.

    If we reform, we have to do a very good job of it.

    A 12-Step Program to Save US Democracy
    By Mark Crispin Miller

    Certainly the outlook for democracy seems pretty bleak—and how could it be otherwise? The surest way to make a problem worse is to pretend it isn’t there, which is exactly what our press and politicians have been doing; and the rest is, unfortunately, history.

    But history can be changed, as We the People have continually learned, from our refusal of colonial subjection, to our (partial) establishment as a democratic republic, to the abolition of slavery, to the enfranchisement of women, to the end of formal segregation and the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

    After that, our progress seemed to stop, and it must now resume: for history can be changed, and for the better, but only through our own unbreakable commitment to, and action for, enlightened policies for the renewal of our democracy. Based squarely on America’s first principles, such policies would not be wholly new, however revolutionary they must sound in these bad, backward times. As it was certain policies that got us into this horrific situation, certain other policies can get us out.

    The fact is that We the People are in lousy shape, and must get straight as soon as possible. For we are all addicted to the horse race—and we can’t win, because it’s fixed. And so, before we end up losing everything, we need to pull ourselves together, face the music, and then take all necessary steps to change the tune.

    A 12-Step Program to Save US Democracy

    1. Repeal the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
    This step will inevitably follow an in-depth investigation of how HAVA came to be.

    (My note: Convicted Criminal Jack Abramoff was the lobbyist for HAVA to control politicians with blackmail and control/steal elections with evidence stripping/hiding e-voting, e-scanning, e-tabulating machines:
    Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century
    By Jonathan D. Simon, Truthout)

    2. Replace all electronic voting with hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB).

    Although politicians and the press dismiss this idea as utopian, the people would support it just as overwhelmingly as national health care, strong environmental measures, US withdrawal from Iraq, and other sane ideas.

    3. Get rid of computerized voter rolls.

    It isn’t just the e-voting machines that are obstructing our self-government. According to USA Today, thousands of Americans have had their names mysteriously purged from the electronic databases now used nationwide as records of our registration.

    4. Keep all private vendors out of our elections.

    With their commercial interests, trade secrets and unaccountable proceedings, private companies should have no role in the essential process of republican self-government.

    5. Make it illegal for the TV networks to declare who won before the vote-count is complete.

    Certainly the corporate press will scream about its First Amendment Rights, but they don’t have the right to interfere with our elections. When they declare a winner when we don’t yet even know if the election was legitimate, they delegitimize all audits, recounts and even first counts of the vote as the mere desperate measures of “sore losers.”

    6. Set up an exit polling system, publicly supported, to keep the vote-counts honest.

    Only in America are exit poll results not meant to help us gauge the accuracy of the official count. Here they are meant only to allow the media to make its calls.

    7. Get rid of voter registration rules, by allowing every citizen to register, at any post office, on his/her 18th birthday. 

    Either we believe in universal suffrage or we don’t.

    8. Ban all state requirements for state-issued ID’s at the polls.

    As the Supreme Court smiles on such Jim Crow devices, we need a law, or Constitutional amendment, to forbid them.

    9. Put all polling places under video surveillance, to spot voter fraud, monitor election personnel, and track the turnout.

    We’re under surveillance everywhere else, so why not?

    10. Have Election Day declared a federal holiday, requiring all employers to allow their workers time to vote.

    No citizens of the United States should ever lose the right to vote because they have to go to work.

    11. Make it illegal for Secretaries of State to co-chair political campaigns (or otherwise assist or favor them). 

    Katherine Harris wore both those hats in Florida in 2000, and, four years later, so did Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Jan Brewer in Arizona. Such Republicans should not have been allowed to do it, nor should any Democrats.

    12. Make election fraud a major felony, with life imprisonment–and disenfranchisement–for all repeat offenders.

    “Three strikes and you’re out” would certainly befit so serious a crime against democracy.

    This comes from Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008, a new collection of writings by the major Election Integrity people, which IG Publishing will be bringing out in early April.

  20. Bev

    March 10, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    To make clear caucuses can be stolen also, but can be better traced than evidence free e-voting machines. We need to understand the ways that caucuses can be stolen to be prepared to correct efforts in a timely manner.

    “A crowd whose discontent has risen no higher than the level of slogans is only a crowd. But a crowd that understands the reasons for its discontent and knows the remedies is a vital community, and it will have to be reckoned with.”
    Wendell Berry

    Hillary stole Iowa (1): Clinton team miscounted votes in Precinct #43 (as caught on C-SPAN)


    IOWA – Bernie Sanders supporters are outraged claiming caucus chair Drew Gentsch and precinct captain Liz Buck did not conduct an actual count of Clinton supporters. The pair are accused of deliberately misleading the caucus at precinct #43 in Des Moines.

    This is a very serious accusation especially given the razor thin race in Iowa between Clinton and Sanders. The entire incident was captured on camera by C-SPAN.

    Hillary stole Iowa (2): Iowa precinct captain was paid Clinton campaign staffer (not from Iowa)

    BUSTED: Iowa Precinct Captain Revealed as Paid, Out-of-State Staffer for Clinton Campaign

    With the potentially pivotal Iowa caucus mere hours away, the Bernie Sanders campaign has found evidence to suggest that Hillary has been “infiltrating the caucuses with out-of-state paid staffers.”


    The alarming controversy began when Sanders supporter Dennis Clifford received a letter from the Clinton campaign urging him to caucus for Clinton. While this isn’t in itself unusual, the letter named a paid staffer from out of state as its precinct captain.

    “It’s my job to make sure all of Hillary’s supporters are in attendance on caucus night to ensure Hillary wins,” the out-of-state captain said.

    “I think this raises a very serious concern,” Jeff Weaver, national campaign chairman for Sanders, told Yahoo! News. “I would hope that the media will be able to get to this before Monday night.”

    Precinct captains are traditionally entirely staffed by Iowans. Weaver calls this a “highly irregular” practice on the part of the Clinton campaign, with some experts worrying that this placement “could easily lead to abuse.”

    While Weaver assured Bernie supporters that he’s not concerned specifically about this single out-of-state precinct captain, he did insist that this could be a small link in a larger strategy by the Clinton campaign to have “non-residents attempt to participate and be counted in the caucus.”

    Running contrary to what the intercepted letter suggests, the Clinton campaign continues to maintain that all of its precinct captains are Iowans.

    Hillary stole Iowa (3): Microsoft, which “only interacted with the parties,” didn’t count young, first-time voters

    2:00PM Water Cooler 2/1/2016
    The Trail

    “In a somewhat ominous sign for [Trump and Sanders], the registration numbers have not increased much for either party, and although there is same day registration, the Iowa hands all point out that the Obama upset was presaged by very substantial registrations of new Democrats for months ahead of time” [Digby,Salon]. Sketchy sourcing, though…

    And here’s one reason why: Microsoft wrote really bad software that will keep new voters from registering

    This is a multifaceted pattern of theft, all in one direction on the Democratic side, the neoliberal corporate right wing side. I surely think also on the Republican side, especially in the general elections against Democrats. There is no way people vote for neoconservative Republicans to strip Medicare, Medicaid, aid to children, food stamps, to denial of science, of climate change, with job and money policies that hurt everyone, harsh treatment of everyone but themselves, wars for empire, and privatizing public resources for their own enrichment. No way.

    Some have said that when you google Hillary Clinton the first draw down menu topic was liar. Perhaps, it should also be “election thief.” That goes for the Republicans also who built this voting system so they could scam it, since else wise they would never win any election, and never have any power in order to steal resources.

    We must help Bernie Sanders reform this system to return to a real democracy for the sake of a better future for our families, our nation, and the world.

    • kanta masters

      March 10, 2016 at 6:00 pm

      How do we assist Sanders if he can’t get elected because of election fraud? I believe all I read here AND the real question is WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT??? If they continue to manipulate machines nearly every election could be like wise stolen. I hope some brilliant person has an actual plan to overcome this horrid situation. It also needs to be implemented IMMEDIATELY before it’s too late. Anyone?

      • Fubb

        March 22, 2016 at 4:44 am


        Your two options to effect radical change in a corrupt establishment are revolution and disobedience.

        Bernie Sanders’ campaign is a kind of peaceful, legal revolution. Whether it can succeed depends on the American voters – many truly do not want Sanders, at least not as their first choice – and on the extent to which the establishment has failed to completely control the institutions empowered to eliminate it. In other words, IF we can get Bernie elected despite election fraud and all the other tricks being used to force him to lose, and we can also elect a significant number of “Berniecrats” to suppose him in lower offices, we may get our revolution.

        If it is not possible for a campaign like Bernie Sanders’ to succeed, then disobedience is the only option. Stop paying taxes. Stop obeying laws that exist to oppress the people or protect the elite. Stop acknowledging the elite’s claims to property. Break open the prisons. Sabotage the machinery of the state. Vacate key positions of power. And be prepared to intimidate or kill a whole hell of a lot of police, FBI, and military, because the establishment controls these institutions also and will not hesitate to use them to intimidate or kill you. As you are doing this, you will also need to consider succession – disobedience destroys order and you will want to restore it.

        Does that sound crazy? Dangerous? Unrealistic? Doesn’t matter. Those ARE your options, like it or not. No one ever said life was fair.

  21. Bev

    March 10, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    An Open Letter to Bernie Sanders

    Dear Bernie,

    If you want to win the presidency and elect a revolutionary congress, you must find a way to force accurate counts of votes across the country. There is no reason to believe that machine generated vote counts are accurate when they are not checked for accuracy. This is particularly difficult in places like South Carolina and parts of Kansas, where no paper trail exists to even attempt a public recount. Or Arizona where manual hand counting of ballots is not permitted.

    I live in Kansas. I’m a professional statistician and an ASQ Certified Quality Engineer. I find certain patterns in election results quite disturbing. Graphs of Oklahoma primary results are below. Both exhibit a common and concerning pattern: as the number of votes cast in a precinct increases, so does the vote share for the candidate favored by the Washington establishment. This pattern is NOT due to random chance nor do voter demographics explain it. In the fall, the Republican candidates across the board can be expected to show such a pattern wherever machine counting of votes is combined with poor to non-existent auditing of those results. The pattern is consistent with election rigging.

    Citizens like myself have had little success in forcing our officials to show the paper trails so we can have confidence in their reported results. I’ve been trying for more than three years to get access to the paper records that would allow me to assess how accurate our computer tabulated official vote counts are. After my latest legal setback, it will be another year before I might get permission. In the meantime, we will be having another election on non-transparent voting machines.

    You, as a candidate, have the right to demand manual recounts. Well, in some places anyway. If you were to do so, irrefutable evidence of problems with vote counts will emerge in some of those places. If and only if your supporters can find and correct those problems can your revolution win at the ballot box.

    In states that have paper trails, I suggest you start asking for manual recounts of the paper ballots and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails (VVPAT) where you can. Whether you won or lost the contest doesn’t matter. The point is to evaluate the size and number of discrepancies and check for bias. Laws vary from state to state. Typically there is a short window of time to request recounts. Many jurisdictions will balk and try to keep you from doing so by various legal maneuvers. But there will be many opportunities through the primary season. You have supporters that can be trained and provide labor hours when needed. A 100% manual recount isn’t necessary. A random sample of precincts is sufficient.

    If you recount and find discrepancies, you might receive additional delegates. More importantly, if you were to demand recounts, it would highlight the fact that in many states, those machine counts are never audited or verified with the original paper records. Most citizens are shocked to discover that their vote counting process is not verified, or in some places, verifiable. I know I was when I first discovered this truth about Sedgwick County Kansas in 2012.

    Thank you

    Beth Clarkson

    • kanta masters

      March 10, 2016 at 7:32 pm

      I just copied your letter with author credit and sent it directly to our help staff on the Bernie Campaign. They usually respond very quickly. I’ll let you know if they determine to act on this and set up a protocol…both you and I are willing to assist in any way we can, I know. Thanks for an EXCELLENT letter!

  22. Brit

    March 11, 2016 at 11:27 am

    I am not surprised. I have been monitoring the state results and comparing them to the list of voting equipment used in each state. ALL of the states she has ‘taken in landslides’ with the exception of Alabama & Virginia have voting systems with no paper trail to back up results. Check it out –

  23. equanimus

    March 18, 2016 at 11:40 pm

    The main reason no one will claim fraud based on exit polls is that you can never prove that people are always truthful in exit polls. It is known that in the case of certain candidates, people are reluctant to admit they voted for that candidate, but establishing this in most cases is nearly impossible unless you can first believe the actual voting results.

    • Richard Charnin

      March 19, 2016 at 12:24 am

      Exit poll naysayers like yourself are always refuted by a logical analysis. Your argument is specious.
      It is a canard. It makes no sense. It is not worthy of discussion, but I will refute it anyway.

      Exit poll respondents do not reveal their identity, so there is no reason for them to be “embarrassed” about their vote.
      That argument is pure BS.

      The typical canard that exit poll responders lie is a perfect example. You have no evidence to back up your claim. This is not analysis. Even if a small fraction lied, what makes you think that more Republicans than Democrats would lie or vice-versa? What would be their motive to lie? The claim is totally bogus and without foundation. I base my analysis on publicly available data. So should you.

      The simple facts:
      1) Since 1988, approximately 40 million votes were uncounted, about 30 million were Democratic (50% were minority voters).
      2) Since 1988, the average recorded vote split was Dem 48%- Rep 46%.
      3) Since 1988, the average unadjusted exit poll was Dem 52% – Rep 42%.
      The probability of the 8% discrepancy is 1 in trillions.
      4) The exit pollsters always force the unadjusted poll to match the recorded vote. How come you don’t criticize that process?
      5) If you believe there is zero election fraud, the official vote count is correct and exit polls are worthless, then you are naive.
      6) If you believe election fraud is a fact, but also believe that the exit polls which confirm the fraud are bogus, then you have contradicted yourself.

  24. Bev

    March 22, 2016 at 11:33 am

    Everyone needs to post Richard Charnin’s work and send the work to Bernie Sanders along with The Open Letter to Bernie Sanders-Show Me the Votes, so that we recount paper ballot evidence in those primaries likely stolen, to try to rescue our democracy now while it counts.
    This is a summary exit poll analysis of the five March 15 Democratic primaries. It follows previous posts on the Massachusetts and Michigan primaries.
    Effects of Election Fraud on the Delegate count

    Officially, HRC has 8,653,327 votes (58.6%), Bernie has 6,115,550 (41.4%).

    Applying the approximate 6.6% exit poll discrepancy (972,168 of 14,768,877 total votes), HRC has 8,167,189 votes and Bernie 6,601,688 (55.3-44.7%).

    Clinton leads by 306 delegates (1119-813). Applying Clinton’s adjusted 55.3% share of the current 1932 delegates, she leads by just 204 (1068-864). Super delegates are excluded.

    Clinton’s votes appear to have been padded in the RED states to increase her delegate count.

    Primary Votes/Exit Polls


    View the spreadsheet:

    Why We Support Bernie Sanders Over Hillary Clinton for President
    By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: March 22, 2016

    Wall Street On Parade’s strong preference for a President Bernie Sanders over a President Hillary Clinton is based on a well-formed belief that the United States will experience another financial crisis on Wall Street within the next few years. That crisis will, in hindsight, be viewed as the direct failure of President Obama to enact meaningful financial reform legislation after the 2008 crash, when he had the will of the people behind him, rather than pandering to his overlords on Wall Street who financed his campaign.

    Nothing more clearly demonstrates who has been calling the shots in the Obama administration than the President’s nominees to oversee Wall Street at the U.S. Justice Department, U.S. Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, and his outrageous refusal for more than five years to even follow his own Dodd-Frank financial reform law and appoint a Vice Chairman for Supervision at the Federal Reserve.

    In the early days of his first term, Obama nominated Eric Holder to serve as U.S. Attorney General at the Justice Department and Lanny Breuer to head its Criminal Division. Both Holder and Breuer came from the law firm, Covington & Burling, which had deep ties to Wall Street. Both Holder and Breuer returned to their high-paying jobs as partners at Covington & Burling after failing to prosecute as much as one Wall Street executive of the mega banks that caused the crash. In a January 22, 2013 Frontline expose at PBS, producer Martin Smith revealed the following:

    Martin Smith: We spoke to a couple of sources from within the Criminal Division, and they reported that when it came to Wall Street, there were no investigations going on. There were no subpoenas, no document reviews, no wiretaps.

    Lanny Breuer: Well, I don’t know who you spoke with because we have looked hard at the very types of matters that you’re talking about.

    Martin Smith: These sources said that at the weekly indictment approval meetings that there was no case ever mentioned that was even close to indicting Wall Street for financial crimes.

    Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council to provide ongoing monitoring of the U.S. financial system and placed the U.S. Treasury Secretary as its Chair. For his nominee for Treasury Secretary, Obama picked Jack Lew, a man who had worked for the serially malfeasant Citigroup in the very division which had collapsed the bank, leading to the greatest taxpayer bailout of a banking institution in the history of finance. (Lew served as Chief Operating Officer of the division that the SEC charged with hiding $39 billion of subprime debt off its balance sheet in Structured Investment Vehicles.) Citigroup received a taxpayer bailout of over $45 billion in equity infusions; over $300 billion in asset guarantees; and more than $2 trillion in secret, cumulative, below-market-rate loans from the Federal Reserve.

    Out of the taxpayer bailout funds that went to a clearly insolvent bank, Jack Lew, as a departing gift from Citigroup, received a bonus (yes, a bonus) of $940,000. Adding to the depravity, during the Senate confirmation hearing for Lew, it was revealed that Citigroup had embedded a criteria in Lew’s employment agreement for him getting that big bonus upon his exit from Citigroup. It would be conditioned upon “your acceptance of a full time high level position with the United States Government or a regulatory body.” In other words, Citigroup needed to add another regulator’s name to its gold-plated Rolodex in Washington.

    Lew’s explanation in the Senate confirmation hearing for why he accepted the bonus from a bank being propped up by the taxpayer sounds a lot like Hillary’s explanation for why she took obscene amounts of money from Goldman Sachs for three speeches. Lew stated: “I do believe it was comparable to compensation for people in positions like mine in the industry.” (Yes, insolvent firms like AIG were also handing out obscene bonuses, so in Lew’s warped view, that makes it okay.) When asked by CNN host Anderson Cooper during a Democratic Forum on February 3 why she took $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three speeches, Hillary Clinton said: “Well I don’t know, that’s what they offered.”

    Senator Bernie Sanders was one of only a handful of Senators with the courage to speak out against the Lew nomination and vote against it. In Senate floor remarks, Sanders said this:

    “We need a secretary of the Treasury who does not come from Wall Street, but is prepared to stand up to the enormous power of Wall Street. We need a Treasury secretary who will end the current Wall Street business model of operating the largest gambling casino the world has ever seen and demand that Wall Street start investing in the job creating productive economy. Do I believe that Jack Lew is that person? No, I do not…As someone who supports President Obama, I remain extremely concerned that virtually all of his key economic advisers have come from Wall Street.”


    Hillary is effectively promising a third Obama term. We should take her at her word. The campaign war chest she has reaped from Wall Street and its law firms and hedge funds, together with her millions of dollars in speaking fees from Wall Street mega banks, means you can expect more of the same caliber of appointments to the key Wall Street regulatory posts. And when the next Wall Street crisis arrives, you can count on those regulators putting a gun to the head of the American taxpayer to bail out Wall Street while further sacking a beleaguered Main Street.

    Americans should not underestimate what’s at stake in this election.

  25. kanta masters

    March 22, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    This is an excellent comment from the Martens. Choosing to say i have repeatedly sent information (including Charnin’s expose and Bev’s letter) like this to the Bernie campaign and have received ZERO response…although they often respond to other sends. I don’t get it. I am volunteering today, in fact, at Bernie’s appearance/rally in San Diego. They quickly ran out of seating and thousands have been advised to stay home. For some reason they chose to rent space for only 10,000…I believe we could’ve filled 30,000 seats. If someone can get the attention of the campaign to do something about election fraud I would be most grateful. I am also quite willing to follow-up on any suggestions. Last time I went through a contact via donors Ben and Jerry…I have never heard anything is moving to stop the stolen vote loss however.

  26. davidgmills

    March 22, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Richard. This is David Mills. Hope you remember me from DU and PI years ago. New website you should check out and join. Jackpine Radicals. Bernie Sanders forum filled with exiled DUers and DKosers. They are posting your stuff. Might as well hear it from the horse’s mouth. Reincarnate TIA.

  27. Richard Charnin

    March 22, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    Hi Dave, of course I remember you. I will check out the site.

  28. mark williams

    March 22, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    Then challenge the results

  29. Jeff Edmonds

    March 23, 2016 at 6:01 am

    This is mind-blowing information. I’m going to post links to this everywhere that I can. I’m disabled and I have the time to do this this is going to be my go to blog site thank you for this information

  30. algilber2013

    March 23, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    Reblogged this on democraticindividuality and commented:
    Apt – and this was even worse in Arizona yesterday.

  31. LM

    March 23, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    FYI this is a poll and not actual votes. What a waste of time putting together such an irrelevant piece of propaganda. A sampling of 1297 people extrapolated to represent over 1 million people is inherently flawed. Anyone that knows anything about politics knows that polls are used to influence public opinion, not represent it. If you are unaware of the many varied issues with exit polling, read this: If you are still confused, you probably shouldn’t be writing about politics because you’re not informed enough.

    This article is pure speculative propaganda meant to confuse your readers into believing that voter suppression is going on when you have absolutely no proof whatsoever. This exit polls are not reliable. It’s a CNN exit poll. The fact that you think they have access to the perfect sampling to represent the entire populace when the ACTUAL VOTES say differently shows how inherently biased and incapable of forming an objective analysis you are. Stop this nonsense now. You are helping no one. People on both sides are accused of voter fraud in every election. That doesn’t make what you are doing with this nonsense acceptable or accurate. You are peddling false information to rile up people that don’t know any better.

    • Richard Charnin

      March 24, 2016 at 10:14 pm

      I should not be wasting a minute responding to you.
      You are obviously totally ignorant about polling.
      But I will now expose you as the charlatan you are.

      The margin of error is invariant (does not change) and independent (not a function) of the number of voters, whether 100,000, 1 million or 10 million.
      The MoE in a poll is only a function of (depends on) N= the number of respondents (polled) and the two-party vote shares (s and 1-s).

      MoE = 1.3* 1.96*sqrt(S*(1-S)/N), where
      S and 1-S are the two-party vote shares,
      N is the number of respondents and
      1.3 is the exit poll cluster effect (zero for pre-election polls).

      I will let you calculate the MoE for an exit poll of N=1297 respondents, given S= 0.5

      You are typical of ignorant exit poll commenters and trolls who have the gall to post garbage when they know absolutely zilch about the subject.
      You just made a grand fool of yourself.
      This is what they all say:

      1. Exit polls are always wrong.
      2. People lie when they are polled.
      3. I was never polled.
      4. Correlation does not imply causation. (whatever that means.)
      5- Pollsters are biased and only approach Democrats.
      6. Republicans are reluctant to be polled.
      7. Exit polls are not random samples.
      8. Exit polls have wide margins of error.
      9. Exit polls were wrong in 2000 when Bush won.
      10. Exit polls were wrong in 2004 when Bush won.
      11. Exit poll analysts are biased; they are democrats.
      12. Nate Silver says do not trust exit polls.
      13. If there was election fraud, someone would have talked.
      14. If there was election fraud, the media would have reported it.
      15. I trust CNN and the NY Times, not tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy buffs.
      16. There is nothing to see here, move along.
      17. Democrats are sore losers.
      18. Democrats vote early, Republicans vote late.
      19. Exit polls always behave badly.
      20. The only poll that matters are the actual vote counts.

      I will give you just one chance to reply – after you have calculated the MoE for 1297 respondents.

  32. Rachel

    March 24, 2016 at 7:46 am

    How does early voting affect exit poll numbers?

    • Richard Charnin

      March 24, 2016 at 10:48 pm

      Exit pollsters interview voters randomly as they exit the voting booth.
      They also force the unadjusted exit poll to match the recorded vote – without considering fraud as a possible cause of the discrepancies.
      Ask yourself if this process makes sense.

  33. Lee

    April 22, 2016 at 4:14 am

    Is there enough information presented here to sue the state for a recount or a redress of grievances of some kind?

  34. Maureen Schilder

    April 24, 2016 at 4:02 am

    I was watching the election that day on CNN & for a brief moment the results were showing up earlier in the day & at approx 4p-5pm [like they use to do many years ago — where you could start seeing voting results before the actual time the polls closed … the results showed Bernie with at least an 8 point lead [can not recall the exact % numbers] and the second it appeared on the screen it was taken down a moment later.

    This gave me the creeps because I thought it very suspicious they seemed to not want the results shown… WHY? it made no sense to me. For the remainder of the day CNN never again showed any ongoing voting poll results.

    Later that night when I heard later Hillary won – that’s when I got angry suspecting voter fraud [that combined with Bill & his megaphone at one of the polling sites] really upset me. The other thing I learned since then is that in Massachusetts they use the Diebold voting machines which have been shown to be easily hacked [see link to article] …ALSO please watch this video — very disturbing — Hacking Democracy The Hack YouTube

    Published on Apr 6, 2016
    Proving that Diebold vote counting machines can be hacked

  35. Mike Danvers

    May 1, 2016 at 6:33 am

    This is just crazy stuff. But as much as I love Bernie, if he doesn’t publicly address this stuff and get it changed, he’ll continue to “lose” these contests even though we’re all coming out to vote for him.

    I’ve emailed them, I’ve tweeted at their official campaign–nothing back. Why aren’t they addressing this? Contesting the states where fraud is obvious? It’s frustrating, man. He’d be ahead in delegates now if the fraud states had gone to him(which they would have if counted honestly)

  36. Adolfo Howser

    August 2, 2016 at 10:50 am

    F*ckin’ tremendous issues here. I am very glad to look your article. Thank you so much and i am taking a look forward to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?

  37. Automotive

    September 3, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    Great post and straight to the point. I am not sure if this is really the best place to ask but do you folks have any thoughts on where to employ some professional writers? Thanks 🙂

  38. Automotive

    September 3, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    Hello.This post was really fascinating, especially because I was searching for thoughts on this topic last week.

  39. Automotive

    September 4, 2016 at 3:58 am

    great put up, very informative. I’m wondering why the opposite experts of this sector don’t notice this. You should continue your writing. I am sure, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!

  40. supportusabantsa

    November 16, 2016 at 5:26 am

    Reblogged this on Oregon False Flags Exposed.

  41. Li Minugh

    December 8, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    Unbelievably individual friendly website. Great details available on few clicks on.|


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: