Richard Charnin
July 17, 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
The model calculates Sanders vs. Clinton True Vote vote shares based on the latest Party-ID preference polls of Independent and Democratic voters. Note that in just two years, Independents have increased from 24.2% to 43% of the electorate. They represent 57.3% of the 2-party preference mix.
2014 | 2016 | |||||||
Dem | Ind | Ind/ (Ind+ Dem) | Dem | Ind | Ind/ (Ind+ Dem) | |||
40.5% | 24.2% | 37.4% | 32% | 43% | 57.3% |
Election fraud cost Sanders the primaries.
Independents voted heavily for Sanders. The impossible/implausible Sanders and Clinton shares of Democrats that were required to match the recorded vote proves that the recorded vote was also impossible/implausible.
Given:
25 adjusted primary exit polls and 2 entrance polls (IA and NV) and
1- Independent and Democratic Party-ID mix
2- Recorded Primary vote shares
3- Sanders’ share of Independents (adjusted state primary exit poll)
Gallup Party preference trend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Calculate:
Sanders’ share of Democrats required to match the primary recorded vote
Results:
The required share is impossible (-16% < 1%) in 7 primares:
AL CT SC MS AR FL IA
The required share is implausible (2 < 18%) in 11 primaries:
TN GA TX NV VA NY MA NC MD OH PA
The required share is plausible (> 25%) in 9 primaries:
IN NH MI IL WV MO OK WI VT
Example: In Massachusetts, Sanders had 66.7% of Independents. He had to have an implausibly low 9.1% of Democrats to match his 49.3% share. If he had 25%, he would have won the primary with 54%.
MA……… Pct Sanders Clinton
IND……. 69.8% 66.7% 33.3%
Dem……. 30.2% 9.1% 90.9%
Total….. 100% 49.3% 50.7%
Recorded…….. 49.3% 50.7%
———————————————–
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%
CA 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%
……………………………………………………………………………..
Sensitivity Analysis I and II
1-Independents comprise 55% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
2-Sanders has 45% of Democrats and 65% of Independents.
Base Case: Sanders wins by 56-44%
Sensitivity Analysis I
1-Sanders has 45% of Democrats (held constant).
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Independents range from 45-65% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
Result: Sanders wins 24 of 25 Scenarios.
Sensitivity Analysis II
1-Sanders has 35-55% of Democrats.
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Party-ID: Independents 55%; Democrats 45% (held constant).
Result: Sanders wins 22 of 25 Scenarios..
Sensitivity I | |||||
Sanders% DEM | 45% | IND | |||
45% | 50% | 55% | 60% | 65% | |
Sanders% IND | Sanders Vote share | ||||
75% | 59% | 60% | 62% | 63% | 65% |
70% | 56% | 58% | 59% | 60% | 61% |
65% | 54% | 55% | 56% | 57% | 58% |
60% | 52% | 53% | 53% | 54% | 55% |
55% | 50% | 50% | 51% | 51% | 52% |
Sensitivity II | |||||
Independents | 55% | Sanders% IND | |||
55% | 60% | 65% | 70% | 75% | |
Sanders% DEM | Sanders Vote share | ||||
55% | 55% | 58% | 61% | 63% | 66% |
50% | 53% | 56% | 58% | 61% | 64% |
45% | 51% | 53% | 56% | 59% | 62% |
40% | 48% | 51% | 54% | 57% | 59% |
35% | 46% | 49% | 52% | 54% | 57% |
View the spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359
CarlAntoine
July 17, 2016 at 6:58 pm
Reblogged this on carlantoine and commented:
#BernieSanders #FeelTheBern #OurRevolution #BernieOrBust #JillStein {#Clinton #Trump} #MSMbias #DNC #ElectionFraud #ExitPolls
tracytolmangmailcom
July 19, 2016 at 6:25 pm
Reblogged this on blasphemous rumors.
Debbie
July 21, 2016 at 5:37 pm
Hey DNCbetter, rethink your choice
#OnlyBernieWillDo
Kevin Trye
August 18, 2016 at 1:08 am
It’s not just sad, but a huge loss to America that we’re unable to have open, fair, accurate elections. There are so may ‘what ifs’ when it comes good honourable people like Bernie being barred from or removed from high office. e.g. http://bit.ly/treason-reagan-nixon