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

10 Jul

Richard Charnin
July 10, 2016

My Books
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud 
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

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.  

“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

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

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:

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%
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

Posted by on July 10, 2016 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , , , , ,

24 responses to “Confirmation: Bernie won California by at least 100,000 votes

  1. Angelo

    July 10, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    Reblogged this on deinvestiture.

  2. CarlAntoine

    July 10, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    Reblogged this on carlantoine.

  3. cybteam

    July 11, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Please advise what is going to be done with these corrected results? Will the official win now go to Bernie?

    USent from my iPhone Sue Wylie


  4. Culture Vulture

    July 11, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    Also, is the Sanders Campaign aware of this? Does someone have a contact with them where this can be brought to their attention?

    I also wonder, are there any other states besides California where this level of evidence can be brought forward?

  5. Rev Terryl Todd

    July 12, 2016 at 12:07 am

    What is the next step?

  6. tin man (@tinmantc)

    July 15, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    Watch this space today:

    Per June 30 release: “The Secretary of State will compile the results of the presidential primary contests by July 9, 2016, and will certify the results of all other offices by July 15, 2016. “

  7. Rachman

    July 18, 2016 at 1:45 am

    Bernie is still a candidate even though he ‘endorsed’ Clinton he has not ‘conceded’! . He still has a chance if something happens to change the minds of the super delegates. Help me change their minds! The following is a letter I sent to all state super delegates. Please use the following link to write to your own delegates and feel free to copy or modify what I wrote. “The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should not be forced to choose between them! Polls show that most Bernie supporters will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances and I am one of them! Hillary may survive her legal woes past the primary but Trump will use them to win if she is the candidate. To avoid that probability please vote for Bernie Sanders as president! Super delegates have a serious decision to make. Vote for Hillary with the likelihood of a Trump presidency and a drastically shrinking party or vote for Bernie for a certain win against Trump and open the doors to millions of new Democrats with a revitalized and growing party! The life or death of this party depends on you! Thank you” Please use the link below to send messages to all the super delegates! They need to know that we support Bernie and that he is the only one who can defeat Trump. It only takes about fifteen minutes to send to all the super delegates, just leave the zip code blank, fill out the form and send to all state by state.

    • city zen

      July 20, 2016 at 5:36 pm

      To concede is to admit defeat. Bernie said “Hillary won” which also means “I lost”. he conceded. Stop smoking crack.

    • Heidi Strand

      July 21, 2016 at 10:09 pm

      Love you Rachman. I will do a few more.

  8. Wendy Hermance

    July 20, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    To what government officials in charge of preventing voter fraud do I send this to?

  9. RMNeff

    July 21, 2016 at 2:24 am

    It is a mistake to show one’s work if one does not know what they are talking about.

    The assumption that 75% of the late counted vote would go to Bernie Sanders is a delusion. It also assumes that there were nothing but Democratic votes left to be counted (wrong).

    Also various comments made like San Diego insider saying 100,000 Dem ballots were destroyed … but there were only 561,984 Democratic registered voters in the county going into the primary. Final count was Clinton 215,655 and Sanders 199,716 (51.6% vs 47.7%) … 20% of the vote missing would REALLY stand out (and it did not). And why would we assume the SD numbers would be much different from San Francisco? (53.6% Clinton vs 45.9% Sanders)

    The numbers and claims of this posting do not add up nor follow patterns from previous elections.

    • Richard Charnin

      July 21, 2016 at 2:56 am

      What about the registered independent voters in San Diego? And what percentage of independents voted for Bernie?
      You quote recorded shares (assume zero fraud) in San Francisco and San Diego. What about LA?
      To assume ZERO FRAUD is delusional. Bernie won CA easily.

  10. Joe

    July 25, 2016 at 2:36 am

    i’m a bernie supporter, but this blog distorts the reporting it cites. the selected quote from greg palast was cherry-picked from a story that described precisely why palast’s claim was incorrect. posting debatable information as fact only serves to undercut the legitimate complaints the sanders campaign has to make.

    • Richard Charnin

      July 25, 2016 at 7:51 pm

      Let’s see the link to Palast.
      In any case the proof that Sanders won by at least 100,000 votes stands by itself and does not rely on Palast.

  11. L Nova

    July 28, 2016 at 11:19 am

    Democratic National Convention (Wells Fargo Center)
    Looking for significant number of minorities, (blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc.), to fill seats while cheering

  12. Blazeaglory

    November 10, 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Is Bernie or anyone doing anything about this?

    • Richard Charnin

      November 11, 2016 at 12:15 am

      Yes, a number of suits have been filed. But not by Bernie.
      Google Ray Lutz, Cluiff Arnebeck, Bob Fitrakis

      • Wendy Hermance

        November 11, 2016 at 6:49 am

        Thank you, Richard. I posted on Facebook.

        Nice to meet a journalist. Naomi Klein, Amy Goodman, Sane Progressive Debbie, Wikileaks and the volunteers are all that remains of the once honorable profession. The industry has been taken over by corporate propagandists.


        Elephant Insight project specialists 01 843 813 1835


  13. Cocina madrid

    July 3, 2017 at 9:42 am

    He estado explorando un poco por posts de alta calidad o entradas en blogs sobre estos contenidos. Explorando en Google por fin encontré este sitio web. Con lectura de esta post, estoy convencido que he encontrado lo que estaba buscando o al menos tengo esa extraña sensacion, he descubierto exactamente lo que necesitaba. ¡Por supuesto voy hacer que no se olvide este sitio web y recomendarlo, os pienso visitar regularmente.



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: