RSS

Is the corporate media reporting Jill Stein’s true polling numbers?

18 Sep

Richard Charnin
Sept. 18, 2016

Just published: 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

LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Is the corporate media reporting Jill Stein’s true polling numbers? It’s obvious that the corporate media does not want her in the debates. It would radically change the dynamic of the race.

Stein has just 3% in the polls and needed 15% to qualify for the debates. If Jill got in the debates, her visibility would skyrocket, her poll shares would increase and Hillary Clinton’s shares would decline..

How many Independent and Democratic voters even know Jill Stein?

According to the polls, 12% of respondents are Independents.But the  Gallup Party Affiliation Survey indicates the electorate consists of 42% Independents, 29% Democrats and 29% Republicans.

To believe the Media polls, you must believe that Jill Stein has just 5% of Independents and Democrats. But Bernie had 65-70% of Independents in the primaries- and Jill Stein should be doing nearly as well against Clinton in the polls.

The latest  polls show Trump tied with Clinton and surpassing her in battleground states. The Election Model indicates that he may be leading by 6%. Johnson is taking votes from Trump.  If  Stein’s share increased by 10%,  Clinton’s would decline accordingly – and  Trump would be on his way to a landslide.

Current Media Polls

……………. Pct.. Stein..Clinton.Trump..Johnson

Ind………..12%……5%….40%….40%……..5%

Dem………44%……5%….85%…..5%………5%

Rep……….44%…….0%…..5%….85%…….10%

Total……..100%….2.8%  44.4% 44.4%…. 8.4%

 

Adjusted Media Poll Shares

……………. Pct.. Stein..Clinton.Trump..Johnson

Ind………..12%……30%….15%….40%……..15%

Dem………44%……15%….70%…..5%……..10%

Rep……….44%…….0%…..5%….85%……..10%

Total……..100%….10.2%  34.8% 44.4%…. 10.6%

 

Election Model – Party-ID affiliation from Gallup survey and estimated poll shares.

…………… Pct.. Stein..Clinton.Trump..Johnson

Ind………..42%…35%…20%….25%……20%

Dem ……..29%…20%…70%……5%……..5%

Rep……….29%….2%…..2%…..80% ……16%

Total……..100%..21.1%.29.3% 35.2%….14.4%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 

 

 
10 Comments

Posted by on September 18, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

10 responses to “Is the corporate media reporting Jill Stein’s true polling numbers?

  1. CarlAntoine

    September 18, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    Reblogged this on CarlAntoine and commented:
    #BernieSanders #FeelTheBern #JillStein #JillNotHill {#Clinton #Trump} #MSMbias #GreenParty #Polls rigged

     
  2. Kris Rosvold

    September 19, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    It would be interesting to see, with these polls, what the breakdown of party registration looks like after #Demexit

    We know the Dems got hit, but MSM seems to be most carefully not talking about it or polling ppl unless they include those supposedly “leaning” D or R in the D & R numbers

     
  3. Elizabeth Collins

    September 23, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Your numbers factor in with what I’m seeing on the We The People App. As well, this URL – more of a survey than a poll, is counting hilary in 4th place. I strongly suspected that they’re flipping her percentage numbers with Jill’s, which is why they’re pushing so hard to get us on board:
    http://abcnewsgo.co/2016/09/abc-live-poll-who-are-you-voting-for/#comment-52

     
    • Lia Hunter

      October 5, 2016 at 1:07 am

      That’s actually more of a poll than a survey. It’s not a random sample of population.

       
      • Richard Charnin

        October 5, 2016 at 1:49 am

        I link to the Ipsos poll which theoretically is a random sample.
        My model is not a survey. It is a hypothetical “what-if” analysis based on vote shares applied to Ipsos party-ID.

         
      • Lia Hunter

        October 13, 2016 at 12:08 am

        I was referring to the We The People App being a poll, but I couldn’t edit my comment to make that clear. I respect your knowledge, Mr. Charnin, and I’m grateful that you’re doing this work.

         
  4. macaddictjay

    September 28, 2016 at 10:28 am

    The “live poll” linked to above is from the website “http://abcnewsgo.co.” It’s fake, not from ABC News, but a Trump-paid-for disinfo site. Current results:

    “Who Are You Voting For?

    Donald Trump (54%, 34,751 Votes)
    Jill Stein (19%, 12,360 Votes)
    Gary Johnson (16%, 10,612 Votes)
    Hillary Clinton (11%, 7,120 Votes)
    Total Voters: 64,843”

    If you believe this, you will believe you are in London while crossing London Bridge in Lake Havasu, AZ.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      September 28, 2016 at 7:01 pm

      What live poll? Where do I mention a live poll in the post? I don’t. I am doing a hypothetical scenario analysis.
      You are referring to a previous comment.

      Do you believe that the polls are rigged for Hillary, and that Jill Stein has more than 3%?
      Do you agree that the polls are undersampling Independents?
      And that some did not even interview the 18-34 age group?

      The polls are fixed.The media does not want Jill in the debates.
      Let’s agree on that.

       
    • macaddictjay

      September 28, 2016 at 8:34 pm

      I apologize if any readers mistook my comment on the fake “poll” as anything but a cautionary tale on fake news sites. I support your analysis of the bogus nature of the polls used to exclude non-duopoly candidates from the national debates. I would add the observation that, in addition to your analysis, there is a structural bias built into the poll question: “If the vote was held today…” Framing the question in this way reinforces the fear factor; that is, with no opportunity for the electorate to learn anything about “fringe” (non-duopoly) candidates, the respondents must assume that these candidates had no chance of winning, and that a vote for them would be wasted. If, instead, the poll question was, “Which candidate’s views most closely match your own?” the results would be different. If we are really voting for “our representatives,” why would we NOT want them to represent our views, interests and aspirations? Electoral reform (including ranked-choice voting and voter-verifiable
      paper ballots) would end the fear of “wasting your vote” or being a “spoiler” for the “lesser-evil candidate. Since reform won’t happen before the election, is there anything else which could kill the “fear factor?” Perhaps this web service will suffice: burnmyvote.org. They match you (a non-duopoly voter) with another, in a mutual pledge. Go there to see how it works. Real hope and real change? View and decide.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

%d bloggers like this: