Richard Charnin
April 6, 2016
Updated: May 29
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll
LINKS TO POSTS
This is a preliminary analysis of the Wisconsin Democratic primary exit poll and recorded vote discrepancies.
Bernie Sanders had 563,127 votes (56.5%) and Hillary Clinton 429.738 (43.1%). But the 4:24 pm exit poll indicates that Bernie did even better. The first 1100 respondents indicated that Sanders had 68% of the white vote. The Public Policy Polling (PPP) pre-election poll indicated that Sanders was leading black voters by 51-40%.
The final adjusted CNN Exit Poll indicates that white voters comprised 83% of the electorate (Sanders had 59%). The probability of the 9% decline from 68% to 59% is 1 in 4000. But Census tables showed that Whites comprise 92% of the Wisconsin electorate. I split the difference and assumed 88% were whites. Blacks comprised 10% of the vote (Sanders had 31%) .
Assuming Sanders had 31% of the non-white vote, he won WI by 63.6-36.4%.
Why the 20% decline in Sanders 51% pre-election poll share of blacks? Why the 9% decline in Sanders 68% exit poll share of whites? The probabilities of the discrepancies are way beyond the margin of error.
The poll shows that 7% of voters were Latino (3%), Asian (2%), Other (2%). But the vote shares are NA. Why are vote shares not available for 124 (7%) minority respondents?Was it because their respective turnout rates were too low? The pollsters could have combined the 7% as Other Non-whites. Apparently they used the same vote shares for the 7% as they did for blacks in matching the recorded vote.
The CNN final exit poll (1774 respondents) is shown in this spreadsheet. Vote shares are calculated for each category. It is standard operating procedure to force the exit poll to match the recorded vote in all categories by adjusting the voter turnout percentages and/or the vote shares.
Who still believes that in Wisconsin, the recorded vote represents the true vote?
| Gender | Pct | Clinton | Sanders | Other |
| Men | 43.0% | 35.0% | 64.0% | 1.0% |
| Women | 57.0% | 49.0% | 50.0% | 1.0% |
| Total | 100.0% | 43.0% | 56.0% | 1.0% |
| Age | Pct | Clinton | Sanders | Other |
| 18-29 | 19.0% | 18.0% | 82.0% | 0.0% |
| 30-44 | 24.0% | 33.0% | 66.0% | 1.0% |
| 45-64 | 39.0% | 54.0% | 46.0% | 0.0% |
| 65+ | 18.0% | 62.0% | 37.0% | 1.0% |
| Total | 100.0% | 43.6% | 56.0% | 0.4% |
Assume vote shares of Latino, Asian, Other non-white groups are equal to the Blacks
| Race | Pct | Clinton | Sanders | Other |
| White | 83.0% | 40.0% | 59.0% | 1.0% |
| Black | 10.0% | 69.0% | 31.0% | 0.0% |
| Latino (na) | 3.0% | 69.0% | 31.0% | 0.0% |
| Asian (na) | 2.0% | 69.0% | 31.0% | 0.0% |
| Other (na) | 2.0% | 69.0% | 31.0% | 0.0% |
| Total | 100.0% | 44.9% | 54.2% | 0.9% |
Given a) the 7.9% discrepancy between Sanders’ 56.7% recorded 2-party vote share and his estimated 64.6% exit poll share, and b) assuming a 3.0% exit poll margin of error, there is a 95% probability that his True share was in the range 62-68%. The probability is 97.5% that he had at least 62%.
The probability of the 7.9% discrepancy between Sanders’ estimated 64.6% poll and 56.9% vote share is P= 1.14E-07 or 1 in 8.7 million.
The sensitivity analysis shows Sanders vote share for increments around his base case shares of whites and non-whites.
Sanders had 61.4% in the worst case scenario, assuming he had 65% of whites and 35% of non-whites. He had 67.9% in the best case scenario, assuming he had 71% of whites and 45% of non-whites.
Base Case
| Race | Pct | Sanders | Clinton |
| White | 88.0% | 68.0% | 32.0% |
| Non-white | 12.0% | 40.0% | 60.0% |
| TOTAL | 100.0% | 64.6% | 35.4% |
The sensitivity analysis matrix shows Sanders vote shares for various increments around his base case shares of white (68%) and non-white voters (40%). He had 64.6% in the base case.
Bernie had 55.6% in the worst case (recorded vote) scenario (59% of whites and 31% of non-whites). He had 68.8% in the best case (72% of whites and 45% of non-whites).
Sanders % White voters
| Sanders | 59.0% | 64.0% | 68.0% | 72.0% |
| % Non-white | Sanders Total% | |||
| 45.0% | 57.3% | 61.7% | 65.2% | 68.8% |
| 40.0% | 56.7% | 61.1% | 64.6% | 68.2% |
| 35.0% | 56.1% | 60.5% | 64.0% | 67.6% |
| 31.0% | 55.6% | 60.0% | 63.6% (base) | 67.1% |
Richard Charnin's Blog 
dersh1234
April 6, 2016 at 1:04 am
I’m afraid Sanders polled far worse that 40% with AAs (your assumption) Rather, he received 27%. As for the non-white (non AA vote) they don’t even have stats–too few people to represent..
Jared Diamond
April 6, 2016 at 9:51 am
do you have a link?
Jared Diamond
April 6, 2016 at 9:56 am
Also, by my Math he wins at Least 59.8% of the vote Even if he gets 0% of the non-white vote, the fact that the white population makes up 88% of the 100% voting population, he still wins larger than he actually did. Assuming he wins 20% of the non-white vote, he should get 62% of the total vote. Math: .68*.88 = 59.84 || 59.84 + ( .2 * .12 ) = 62.24%
Richard Charnin
April 8, 2016 at 7:31 pm
He had 51% in the PPP pre-election poll and 31% in the final ADJUSTED poll. Does that seem right to you?
Do you believe the adjusted exit poll? If you do, then you believe the election was fraud-free.
oscodaartist2013
April 6, 2016 at 11:00 pm
Last thing I saw before the Wisconsin election was that Bernie was leading Clinton with Black voters by 11 points. Here’s one link
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/bernie_sanders_may_be_leading_hillary_clinton_with_black_voters_in_this_one_very_important_state/
oscodaartist2013
April 6, 2016 at 11:02 pm
It was PPP poll from March 31. Here’s the direct link http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/WisconsinPrimaryPoll33116.pdf
Richard Charnin
April 8, 2016 at 7:29 pm
Thanks for that. I included it in my post. Bernie at 51% of blacks in the PPP pre-election poll but just 31% in the adjusted final exit poll? No way.
That is how the exit pollsters at Edison Research (who work for the National Election Pool) cover up the fraud – by adjusting the poll numbers to match the bogus recorded vote.
frater plecticus
April 7, 2016 at 6:25 am
sure you’ll like this
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/05/upshot/wisconsin-live-model-democratic-primary-results.html?_r=3
nightengrrl
April 7, 2016 at 6:45 am
I’d be interested in your thoughts on the Kloppenberg race. Exit polling had her projected to win, but ended up not.
Richard Charnin
April 8, 2016 at 5:14 pm
I do not have the precinct votes or the preliminary exit poll numbers, but I am sure she won.
I posted about her chances a few weeks ago.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/wi-supreme-court-why-kloppenburg-will-win/
Christo
April 7, 2016 at 5:23 pm
Just wondering, Richard, what you think the delegate count ought to be, had there been no vote tampering. Where would we be had the actual results reflected the unadjusted exit polls? Would Bernie be ahead, and by how much. What are the probabilities?
Richard Charnin
April 8, 2016 at 6:47 pm
I estimated that Bernie would have at least 100 more delegates
Carol
April 9, 2016 at 1:58 pm
Richard, I remember you well as TIA at DU and have followed you. Have the Sanders people been informed of your analysis?
Richard Charnin
April 9, 2016 at 2:26 pm
I believe so.
Devon Delsole
April 15, 2016 at 7:21 am
Richard, My name is Devon Baldwin/DelSole. I am a part of an Election Justice organization. Due to the public nature of this comment, I can’t say much more here. I would like to talk with you about your findings. We are pursuing this legally and I’d love to talk about how your data can help. Please feel free to add me on facebook or email me at devon.baldwin@gmail.com.