MI Primary: Bernie did much better than the recorded share indicates

11 Mar

Michigan Primary:  Sanders did better than his recorded vote indicates

Richard Charnin (with John Brakey)
Updated: March 13, 2016

This analysis indicates that Sanders did much better than his recorded vote in the Michigan primary.  Sanders had 590,386  votes (49.8%) and Clinton 570,948 (48.3%).   Sanders won in 73 of 83  MI counties with 56% of the vote. He won the preliminary exit poll by 52.1-45.9%, a 97% win probability. Clinton won urban counties Wayne and Oakland  with approximately 55% of the vote.

Clinton won the  Massachusetts primary by  just 1.4%,  but she did well  in urban areas. Sanders won  hand-counted precincts by 57-40% in 68 Towns (32,360 votes, 2.7% of votes cast).  Sanders also had 52.1% in the preliminary exit poll which he won by 52.1-45.7%. His win probability was also 97%.

Once again, we have multiple confirmation indicating fraud: Cumulative vote shares, preliminary exit poll, absentee vote anomalies and other anecdotal information.

Will we see the same fraud indicators in FL, OH, IL, MO and NC on March 15?

It should be conventional wisdom by now: in state elections, fraud abounds in heavily populated urban and suburban locations. Of course, the media never talks about it. They report the recorded numbers as if there was not a fraud factor.

Election Fraud Indicators

Sanders had 1) 56% at the 600,000 Cumulative vote share mark,  2)  54% of approximately 500,000 votes cast on AccuVote and Sequoia  voting machines and 3) led 52.1-45.9% in the unadjusted exit poll. 

Clinton had 1) 75% of approximately 240,000 absentee votes and 2) 51.2% of approximately 700,000 votes cast on ES&S Mod 100 machines. The percentages are highly suspect. 

Voting Machines (optical scanners)

Sanders’ county vote shares  were negatively correlated to machine types. The ES&S Model 100 was a highly negative -0.68. The bigger the county the lower Sanders’ vote share. 

Wayne and Oakland counties used ES&S Model 100 optical scanners. Macomb used both ES&S and Premier/Diebold/Dominion AccuVote optical scanners.

Opscan Total Vote Sanders Share Correl to Vote
AccuVote OS 286,606 156,782 54.70% -0.21
Model 100 648,911 313,009 48.24% -0.68
Optech Insight 230,176 121,582 52.82% -0.37
Total vote 1,165,693 591,373 50.73% -0.40

Unadjusted MI Exit Poll

Sanders led the preliminary exit poll of 1510 respondents  by 52.1-45.9% (787-693). He led the adjusted exit poll  (matched to the recorded vote) of 1601 respondents by 49.8-48.3%  (797-773).

But the recorded share was IMPOSSIBLE.  The proof is self-explanatory: How could Clinton gain  80  and Sanders just 10 of the final 91 exit poll respondents?

Based on the two-party preliminary share (53.16-46.84%) and 3.27% margin of error, Sanders had a 97.1% win probability.

Preliminary Exit Poll – 1510 respondents  (3.27% MoE)

Gender Pct Clinton Sanders Other
men 0.45 0.42 0.56 0.02
women 0.55 0.49 0.49 0.02
 Total 100% 45.9% 52.2% 2.0%

Adjusted Final Exit Poll – 1601 respondents (forced to match the recorded vote)

Gender Pct Clinton Sanders Other
men 0.45 0.44 0.55 0.02
women 0.55 0.51 0.45 0.03
Total 100% 47.9% 49.5% 2.6%

Absentee Votes (AV) differed substantially from the overall county vote results.  Generally absentee voting is a close match to the precincts.  

The Democrats had an estimated 237,000 AV. Approximately 177,750 (76%) voted for Clinton and 59,250 for Sanders.  How did Clinton win AV by 76-24%? One would expect that Sanders and Clinton would nearly split AV.

Some have suggested that the reason Clinton won absentees by 50% is that they are typically older voters who supported Hillary.  But Clinton won 60% of 45+ voters in the adjusted final exit poll.  Since  all exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote (see AAPOR ),  Clinton probably had less than 60%. So much for the age issue.

This Sensitivity Analysis shows the effect of Clinton’s share of absentees from her estimated 177,750 recorded absentee votes to Sanders 59,250.

HRC%Abs Actual 70% 65% 60% 55% 50%
Absentees 237,000 165,900 154,050 142,200 130,350 118,500
– Clinton 177,750 116,130 100,133 85,320 71,693 59,250
– Sanders 59,250 59,250 59,250 59,250 59,250 59,250
Clinton Total 570,948 509,328 493,331 478,518 464,891 452,448
Clinton share 49.16% 48.09% 46.97% 45.80% 44.58% 43.30%
Sanders 50.84% 51.91% 53.03% 54.20% 55.42% 56.70%

Absentee votes in the largest counties

County Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders
Wayne 37,522 9,047 80.57% 19.43%
Oakland 23,417 8,776 72.74% 27.26%
Macomb 13,592 5,593 70.85% 29.15%
Total 74,531 23,416 76.09% 23.91%

Cumulative County Vote Shares

In the CVS analysis, Sanders had approximately 56% at the 600,000 mark. Notice the abrupt change to straight lines at the 600,000 vote mark. They represent the largest counties (Wayne and Oakland which used ES&S optical scanners exclusively.

Cumulative Vote Shares by County Machine Type


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 11, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , , ,

23 responses to “MI Primary: Bernie did much better than the recorded share indicates

  1. Bev

    March 13, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    See what you think. All candidates what do you propose to do during the primaries, so that it can make a difference to our democracy and our kids?

    Richard, could you provide some insight into your sample size which seems to be an issue with Brad Friedman in people’s comments at his article:
    Bernie Takes Michigan and Other Mainstream Media Misses: ‘BradCast’ 3/9/2016
    Accurate coverage of results in MS, ID, HI, MI and even KY!
    PLUS: Listener calls and more!…
    By Brad Friedman on 3/9/2016, 5:32pm PT

    Also in comments, I make an appeal to Sibel Edmonds who had covered the crimes against the state and the crimes against children of convicted criminal former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert among others. How does someone like him ascend to be the third most powerful political leader in our nation? If you look at the articles, there seems to be a link between child abusers and owners of those evidence removing/hiding e-voting, e-scanning machines.

    The information about Hastert left her so disgusted, that she is fundraising to create a new media called NEWSBUD. Her fundraising is on Kickstarter:

    She only has until Thu, Apr 14 2016 12:57 AM CDT. She has many reporters she wants to be a part of this. It is a big project. Help her fund this, if you can. Pass it along.

    If, as some articles and whistleblowers suggest, there is a link to child abusers as the owners of these horrible evidence stripping/hiding e-voting, e-scanning machines, it is time to confirm in order to get those anti-democracy machines out of our primaries as fast as possible. It could make all the difference if done soon enough. All information should be sent to all candidates so that they will lead the way to remove those abusive machines and so save our kids, our democracy and perhaps even our species.

    Among the articles:

    Still Evil after All These Years: The Franklin Scandal and Pedophilia in High Places
    By Charles M. Young Posted by Dave Lindorff

    The Omaha World-Herald was the foremost local cheerleader for persecuting teenagers instead of investigating their claims. One of its own columnists, Peter Citron, had a long history of arrests for pedophilia and child porn and was implicated by two witnesses at Larry King’s sex parties. The long-time publisher of the World-Herald, Harold Anderson, was a big supporter of Larry King and had raised money for the Franklin. During the 18 years that King presided over the Franklin, the newspaper never noticed that King was living a hugely expensive lifestyle when he was supposedly making $17,000 a year in salary. The World-Herald Company is co-owner of Election Software and Systems (also known as ES & S and associated with Diebold and more), which counts half the election ballots in the United States.

    Americans have plenty of obvious reasons to hate the rich and powerful. Wars for oil, rampant pollution, the destruction of individual rights, the constant lying about everything. It’s all on the front page, and it’s like old furniture in the living room. It’s hard for most people to notice. Boutique evil of the Gerry Sandusky sort affects fewer victims, but is more easily understood once the initial denial breaks down. If the denial of the Franklin Credit Union scandal ever breaks down, the consequences will reverberate far higher than happened at Penn State. Except for all those who died in suspicious accidents and suicides, the witnesses are still out there. Some might even talk about it. They talked to Nick Bryant.

    FRANKLIN SCANDAL: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal

    by Nick Bryant

    The FRANKLIN SCANDAL is the story of a nationwide pedophile ring that pandered children to a cabal of the rich and powerful. The ring’s pimps were a pair of political powerbrokers who had access to the highest levels of our government. Nebraska legislators attempted to expose the network in 1989 and 1990, but the legislators’ efforts were followed by a rash of mysterious deaths and the overpowering responses of federal and local law enforcement, including the FBI and Justice Department, which 
effected an immaculate cover-up of the trafficking network.

    The publisher is donating 50% of the book’s proceeds to organizations that assist abused children.

    • Bev

      May 9, 2016 at 12:54 pm

      Sibel has a new effort to fundraise for Newsbud:

      Newsbud-Phase One Campaign is Live Now!
      Posted by Sibel Edmonds (Creator)

      Dear Friends & Supporters,

      We’re back! Your incredible support and generous pledges during our last Kickstarter campaign have encouraged us to try another time.

      Today is the day. It’s the first day of our new campaign, and we need you to help again. We have 45 days to raise $150,000, and we know we can do it with your help! Make a pledge, subscribe to Newsbud, put the word out by forwarding this link to others. And please take action as soon as possible—the first three to four days of the campaign will be the most critical to our success.


      Now is the time to stand up for your right to be informed and help create a news and multimedia network unlike anything else online, in print, or on TV. Newsbud will produce original stories, investigative reports, video-podcasts, editorials, and discussion forums, and it will be a real independent alternative because it will be 100% people funded.

      As part of our new strategy, we are running four Kickstarter campaigns over an 18-month period and a simultaneous subscription drive. With each successful Kickstarter campaign and subscription effort, we’ll launch additional programs and content and bring in more staff. At the end of Phase 4, Newsbud will be the fully operational, truly independent, 100% people-funded news sources we’ve all been waiting for. The great thing about this new approach: we’ll begin delivering articles and programs in early June so everyone can see the value of what we’re doing and the quality of our work before the campaign is even over!

      Without you, we cannot achieve our dream of a media outlet that is nonpartisan and accountable only to its viewers and to the truth. Make a donation, subscribe, and activate others by sharing this email. They have rendered we the people irrelevant; together, we will make them irrelevant!

      Newsbud-Phase One Kickstarter Campaign:


      Sibel Edmonds

  2. Bev

    March 13, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    Richard, could you provide some insight into your sample size which seems to be an issue with Brad Friedman in people’s comments at his article:
    Bernie Takes Michigan and Other Mainstream Media Misses: ‘BradCast’ 3/9/2016
    Accurate coverage of results in MS, ID, HI, MI and even KY!
    PLUS: Listener calls and more!…
    By Brad Friedman on 3/9/2016, 5:32pm PT

    Also, in comments, I make an appeal to Sibel Edmonds who is Kickstarting a new media, NEWSBUD:

    She only has until Thu, Apr 14 2016 12:57 AM CDT. She has many reporters she wants to be a part of this. It is a big project.

    • Richard Charnin

      March 14, 2016 at 10:14 am

      The MI Margin of Error (adjusted for the standard 30% exit poll cluster effect) is 3.27%

      Unadjusted MI Exit Poll

      Sanders led the preliminary exit poll of 1510 respondents by 52.1-45.9% (787-693). He led the adjusted exit poll (matched to the recorded vote) of 1601 respondents by 49.8-48.3% (797-773).
      But the recorded share was IMPOSSIBLE. The proof is self-explanatory: How could Clinton gain 80 and Sanders just 10 of the final 91 exit poll respondents?

      Based on the two-party preliminary share (53.16-46.84%) and 3.27% margin of error, Sanders had a 97.1% win probability.
      Preliminary Exit Poll – 1510 respondents (3.27% MoE)

      Gender Pct Clinton Sanders Other
      men 0.45 0.42 0.56 0.02
      women 0.55 0.49 0.49 0.02
      Total 100% 45.9% 52.2% 2.0%

      There is a 97.1% probability that Sanders won.
      MI Democratic Primary Exit Poll
      (forced to match the recorded vote)
      Respondents Clinton Sanders Other
      1601 Adjusted Final 48.30% 49.80% 1.90%
      1510 Unadjusted 45.90% 52.10% 2.00%
      Two-party vote 46.84% 53.16%

      Margin of error (30% Cluster) 3.27%
      Sanders Win Prob = 97.1% = normdist(0.5316,0.5,0.0327/1.96,true)

  3. Bev

    March 14, 2016 at 10:44 am

    As always, thank you Richard.

  4. Bev

    March 18, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    Here is the article that informed me of Sibel Edmonds reporting on and goal of removing these criminals, and their crimes against the state and crimes against children, from government to create a better future for kids and for our nation.


    Whistleblower: Powerful Congressman Hastert’s Corruption Goes FAR Beyond Sex With a Student
    Posted on October 22, 2015
    by WashingtonsBlog
    The REAL Hastert Scandal

    The People’s Campaign: The Real Hastert Case- All in One Place

    Sibel Edmonds | October 19, 2015
    Let’s Counter the Complicit US Media with Our Own!

  5. Victoria

    March 20, 2016 at 4:28 am

    There is insane fraud going on in the actual vote count and now another profoundly serious matter has come to light regarding what seems to be widespread infiltration of Clinton operatives within the Sanders campaign. That is a slightly separate matter and is developing right now, in clarity, but what would you suggest in order to bring this to the DOJ or wherever it is to be brought (vote count fraud).. You clearly know your stuff, and hope you will advise. Thank you

    • Richard Charnin

      March 20, 2016 at 2:33 pm

      I do not advise. I am a quantitative analyst. That is what I do.

      • Victoria

        March 20, 2016 at 3:48 pm

        Fair enough! I am grateful beyond measure for your work on this, and ask if you would be willing to assist efforts to bring this to the attention of the FEC? We need this kind of analysis for as many primary elections as possible, needless to say. So grateful for your attention and efforts in these posts. Bless you.

    • Bev

      March 20, 2016 at 6:56 pm

      Perhaps someone in New York could find out if Bharara has any jurisdiction:

      Preet Bharara: One of the world’s top complex crime prosecutors
      By Bev Harris

      NEW YORK – Recognized worldwide for his prowess in fighting 21st-Century crime, New York-based Preetinder Singh “Preet” Bharara has launched a Complex Frauds Unit, successfully prosecuting numerous political corruption cases. His office is prosecuting the recent Malcolm Smith election fraud case, demonstrating a complex web of bribes paid in connection with Democratic politician Malcolm Smith, to Republican Party officials with the intent to obtain for Smith the Republican spot on the ballot in an election for New York City Mayor.1

      Under Bharara, a number of prosecutions have succeeded in the areas of election fraud, corruption, Wall Street malfeasance, money laundering, and computer hacking; he also successfully prosecuted members of the Gambino crime family.2 Among Bharara’s high profile cases: liquidation and victim restitution for the billion-dollar Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme.3

      If the two most important anti-corruption measures are transparency and enforcement, look at the work by Bharara for an example of enforcement. Named by Time Magazine as one of the “World’s 100 Most Influential People for 2012,”4 Bharara created the Complex Frauds Unit to deal with the often byzantine, technical, and overlapping-jurisdictional problems in today’s financial and cybercrime corruption.

      Tampered e-voting, e-scanning, e-tabulting machines would be political corruption and in some ways a cybercrime.

      Preetinder Singh “Preet” Bharara (born 1968) is an American attorney and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.[1] Earning a reputation of a “Crusader” prosecutor,[2][3] his office has prosecuted diplomats[4][5] and people in other countries.[6] He prosecuted nearly 100 Wall Street executives,[7] reached historic settlements and fines with the four largest banks in the US,[8][9][10] and closed multi billion dollar hedge funds.[11][12] He brought down many City and State politicians, including the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver and the Majority Leader of State Senate, Dean Skelos, and at one time he threatened to prosecute the governor’s office.[13]

      And, perhaps someone in Ohio can contact Cliff Arnebeck in Ohio, who has had some losses and wins against election fraud.

      Cliff Arnebeck (born 15 January 1945 in Washington, D.C., USA) is the chair of the Legal Affairs Committee of Common Cause Ohio and a national co-chair and attorney for the Alliance of Democracy.

      The son of an officer in the Bureau of Finance, Post Office Department,[1][2] he graduated B.A. Wesleyan University in 1967 and received a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1970. He first worked for Ohio Bell in Cleveland, Ohio and later in the legal department for the American Electric Power Company before joining the Jones, Day law firm in Columbus, Ohio.
      Unsuccessful as a candidate, Arnebeck sought to act as a legal watchdog during elections.
      Since then, Arnebeck has focused on the fraudulent use of computers in counting votes, a main issue in the 2004 suit, as the major threat to American elections.

  6. Richard Charnin

    March 20, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    Thank you for that. I will continue to do analysis and contribute as I have. But I can do no more. Let others take this to the FEC.

    • Victoria

      March 20, 2016 at 4:46 pm

      Absolutely! You’re a gift from the angels to whom I have been aggressively praying. I just found you on Facebook. So as of now your analysis indicates an actual difference of 100 pledged delegates? That is the total?

      • Richard Charnin

        March 20, 2016 at 5:00 pm

        It is only an approximation.

    • Victoria

      March 20, 2016 at 4:52 pm

      ( I am having difficulty locating all of the 2016 Democratic primary entries – is there one link for all of them that might do it? Forgive these intrusions; very eager to herd the numerous cats into something of a cohesive form, relative to the very impressive subterfuge on the part of the DNC / Clinton machine, for time is of the essence. )

  7. Richard Charnin

    March 21, 2016 at 10:13 am

    Both are important: Unadjusted exit poll discrepancy from the recorded vote AND (the Smoking Gun) forcing unadjusted exit poll data to match the bogus recorded vote using impossible mathematical changes. See the 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 National Presidential Exit polls.

    Media sources hide the fact that changes are made to the polls to conform with the recorded vote.
    But the AAPOR and the exit pollsters themselves admit it.

  8. Summer Rose

    May 20, 2016 at 3:44 am

    Thanks for all the amazing work you are doing! I’ve been traveling the country on Bernie Campaign Tour and everywhere I go there is voter suppression, election fraud, “clerical accidents”, oddities, etc. It is very frustrating to say the least.

    It is clear that you have A LOT of the voting data from the 2016 elections (likely in a number of spreadsheets), and can hopefully easily come up with ballpark figures that tell us Bernie’s MORE LIKELY vote tallies (as well as Hillary’s) IF the numbers were adjusted to match exit poll results within a 4% margin of error.

    It would be a great article to write that I would certainly share widely. Thanks again! Summer Rose BERNing for Truth!

    • Richard Charnin

      May 20, 2016 at 8:02 am

      Ballpark: Bernie would be at least tied- but his trend is rising. He has the BIG MO.

  9. sbobet

    July 23, 2018 at 9:17 pm

    Superb, wһat a weblog it іs! This web site presents helpful information tⲟ us, kеep it up.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: