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

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%