## 2016 ELECTION MODEL (Nov.3): Trump 98% Win Probability

03 Nov

2016 ELECTION MODEL (Nov.3): Trump 98% Win Probability

Richard Charnin
Nov.3, 2016

The purpose of the Election Model  is to show the effects of changes in voter party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind). There are currently nine polls in the model. Each poll is shown using a) the actual poll shares and Party-ID weights and b) the actual poll shares using the Gallup party-affiliation survey. Gallup is the only poll dedicated to national voter party affiliation.

Undecided voters are allocated to derive the final adjusted TRUE poll share. Typically the challenger (in this case Trump) gets approximately 75% of the undecided vote.

Clinton leads Trump 44.9-43.3%  in the actual 9-poll average.

After adjusting the polls for the Gallup voter affiliation split (40I-32D-28R):
Trump leads Clinton 44.7-41.7% and by 336-202 EV before undecided voter allocation.
Trump leads Clinton 49.0-43.2% after undecided voter allocation.
There is a 98% probability that Trump will win the popular vote.

THE MODEL SHOWS THAT THE PRE-ELECTION POLLS ARE OVERSTATING HILLARY CLINTON’S VOTE BY INFLATING THE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS COMPARED TO INDEPENDENTS AND REPUBLICANS.

As I have stated many times, each poll has a different party-ID.Theoretically, they should all have the SAME Party-ID since these are NATIONAL polls – and there is only ONE theoretical NATIONAL Party-ID split at any given point in time.

The popular Vote Win Probability and estimated Electoral Vote are calculated for each poll. The 2016 party-ID for each state is calculated by applying the  proportional  change  from the 2012 party-ID  to  the current Gallup 2016 survey Party-ID. The state votes  are calculated by applying the published national poll shares to the 2016 state party-ID. The electoral vote is then calculated.

The built-in SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS shows the effect of incremental vote shares on the total vote.

Those who have written models can appreciate the methodology. So can individuals who can apply basic logic.The model uses actual published data. If there is another quantitative modeler out there who has written a similar model to approximate the True poll shares, I would like to see it.

 9-POLL AVERAGE Gallup Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson Ind 40.0% 4% 28% 44% 6% Dem 32.0% 1% 91% 6% 2% Rep 28.0% 1% 5% 90% 3% Total 92.5% 2.2% 41.7% 44.7% 3.9% Votes 119,448 2,840 53,863 57,736 5,009 EVote 538 0 202 336 0
 Nov. 3 Party ID ACTUAL Ind Dem Rep HRC Trump Ipsos 11.9% 43.5% 36.6% 42% 38% IBD 27.4% 39.9% 32.7% 44% 44% Rasmussen 32% 40% 28% 42% 45% Quinnipiac 26% 40% 34% 47% 40% Fox News 19% 43% 38% 44% 41% CNN 43% 31% 26% 49% 44% ABC 29% 37% 29% 47% 45% Gravis 27% 40% 33% 46% 45% LA Times 30% 38% 32% 43% 48% Average 27.3% 39.2% 32.1% 44.9% 43.3% GALLUP ADJUSTED Elect Vote Popular Vote Undec.Alloc. 40I-32D-28R HRC Trump HRC Trump Win Prob Win Prob Ipsos 37.9% 39.4% 232 306 73.4% 99.4% IBD 40.9% 45.8% 180 358 96.8% 99.8% Rasmussen 37.2% 47.4% 46 492 100.0% 100.0% Quinnipiac 44.7% 40.8% 335 203 6.5% 35.8% Fox News 39.6% 41.6% 218 320 79.9% 97.3% CNN 48.6% 44.4% 335 203 7.0% 13.7% ABC 46.4% 49.7% 202 336 86.5% 87.4% Gravis 42.6% 45.6% 216 322 86.7% 99.1% LA Times 40.7% 49.4% 54 484 99.9% 100.0% Average 41.7% 44.7% 202 336 87.2% 98.1%
 Sensitivity Analysis 9-Poll Average Gallup 40I-32D-28R Trump % Rep Trump 86.0% 88.0% 90.0% 92.0% 94.0% % Ind Trump 48% 45.2% 45.8% 46.3% 46.9% 47.4% 44% 43.6% 44.2% 44.7% 45.3% 45.8% 40% 42.0% 42.6% 43.1% 43.7% 44.2% Clinton 48% 41.2% 40.7% 40.1% 39.6% 39.0% 44% 42.8% 42.3% 41.7% 41.2% 40.6% 40% 44.4% 43.9% 43.3% 42.8% 42.2% Margin 48% 4.0% 5.1% 6.2% 7.3% 8.4% 44% 0.8% 1.9% 3.0% 4.1% 5.2% 40% -2.4% -1.3% -0.2% 0.9% 2.0% Vote Margin (000) 48% 4,730 6,068 7,406 8,744 10,081 44% 908 2,246 3,583 4,921 6,259 40% -2,915 -1,577 -239 1,099 2,437
 9-poll average Vote Share Electoral Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Total 41.7% 44.7% 202 336 AK 29.6% 49.9% 0 3 AL 36.7% 51.4% 0 9 AR 38.6% 49.0% 0 6 AZ 36.3% 47.9% 0 11 CA 44.7% 41.3% 55 0 CO 37.6% 46.8% 0 9 CT 42.6% 40.7% 7 0 DC 66.6% 23.7% 3 0 DE 46.9% 40.0% 3 0 FL 41.2% 45.2% 0 29 GA 39.8% 48.0% 0 16 HI 46.4% 42.1% 4 0 IA 37.9% 46.4% 0 6 ID 32.1% 54.9% 0 4 IL 45.3% 42.7% 20 0 IN 38.6% 49.0% 0 11 KS 32.4% 52.7% 0 6 KY 47.9% 42.2% 8 0 LA 36.6% 46.0% 0 8 MA 43.8% 37.4% 11 0 MD 51.0% 36.9% 10 0 ME 39.2% 44.3% 0 4 MI 43.5% 44.3% 0 16 MN 43.1% 45.1% 0 10 MO 39.7% 48.4% 0 10 MS 38.8% 49.4% 0 6 MT 35.3% 52.8% 0 3 NC 43.5% 42.6% 15 0 ND 37.6% 50.4% 0 3 NE 34.8% 52.4% 0 5 NH 36.2% 46.9% 0 4 NJ 40.9% 41.4% 0 14 NM 45.8% 41.4% 5 0 NV 41.7% 44.7% 0 6 NY 48.6% 37.9% 29 0 OH 41.0% 47.1% 0 18 OK 42.1% 46.8% 0 7 OR 41.6% 43.6% 0 7 PA 46.3% 42.6% 20 0 RI 47.0% 35.5% 4 0 SC 39.7% 48.4% 0 9 SD 36.6% 50.8% 0 3 TN 37.1% 50.7% 0 11 TX 39.2% 47.9% 0 38 UT 30.3% 57.8% 0 6 VA 40.5% 47.4% 0 13 VT 46.1% 41.2% 3 0 WA 42.5% 47.0% 0 12 WI 42.2% 46.1% 0 10 WV 47.7% 39.8% 5 0 WY 25.8% 62.5% 0 3

Posted by on November 3, 2016 in 2016 election

### 7 responses to “2016 ELECTION MODEL (Nov.3): Trump 98% Win Probability”

1. November 3, 2016 at 5:28 pm

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

2. November 5, 2016 at 3:48 am

Enthusiasm, the main driver in elections, will reveal voters’ rejection of the (perceived as corrupt) business-as-usual politicians. It will also reveal the futility of pollsters and mainstream media ignoring Independents, millenials and third-party supporters. Enthusiasm drives other actions as well as voting; thus, people pushing forward their views in all of their bumpy, contentious, contagious, powerful ways will re-form and transform our political system.

3. November 6, 2016 at 2:09 pm

Aren’t those polls with low/10% Ind simply counting leaners as party affiliated? Gallup shows 49 D and 44 R when leaners are included which would fit with a low Ind amount remaining.

4. November 7, 2016 at 11:37 am

My thinking is – barring some major new scandal that the establishment cannot ignore – the installation of Hillary Clinton will take place on schedule tomorrow. The establishment has duped enough people into voting for her over the fake candidate Trump, and whoever isn’t on board is either marginalized, ridiculed, or ignored.

When that happens and she officially takes office, the TPP will be finally put in place and the United States will become a simple but large region in the global establishment. Our democracy with its precious-little impact, will have none at all.

5. November 7, 2016 at 12:35 pm

We’ll doubtless take the Senate. Our revolution has already begun; it can’t be rolled back by the desperate (and well aware of their power problem) elites. With knowledge and tools unknown in the past 50 years, we will overturn Citizens United, re-instate revised Glass-Steagall, dump TPPs and fracking, and so on. No one can stop us. We’re too many, too bright, too varied in approaches and actions to be fooled and broken. We are the power.

6. November 7, 2016 at 12:55 pm

For the future: Paper Ballots Hand Counted and Posted in Precinct in Public on Election Night. New Exit Pollsters. Green Party & Libertarian in debates. And get election rigger Jeffrey W. Dean to flip. We need our Democracy.

Fraction Magic – Detailed Vote Rigging Demonstration
Bev Harris

Q: Does Fraction Magic always use a USB?
A: No. It can also be on the computer or use remote access

Q: Who put it there?
A: According to programmers and court testimony: a convicted felon; 23 counts on previous computer crimes.

Q: Name?
A: Jeffrey W. Dean. Previously employed by Bud Krogh, the former head of White House Plumbers unit under Richard Nixon.

Jeffrey Dean put some other stuff in there too.
It is not over.:
Stand up.
Let’s make it right.

Fraction Magic – Detailed Vote Rigging Demonstration
Bev Harris

………

Are you a lawyer or do you know any lawyers?

via email from: http://trustvote.org/
The Institute of American Democracy and Election Integrity

Help Make Our Elections Worthy of Our Trust ! A Brilliant, New, Inexpensive Way to Create Trackable, Publicly Verifiable Elections Results!

A few days ago, we told you about the problem of fractionalizing votes. I mentioned that we would be sending you a letter with a really good solution that has worked once before and could work again. Although votes can be fractionalized while adding them up, the ballot images pictures taken of the ballots can not be reduced to fractions. The solution is to issue temporary restraining orders in swing state counties so that the ballot images can be preserved. The act of issuing TRO’s will also be a deterrent in itself to fractionalizing votes in an effort to steal the election. This process could apply to all elections, presidential, state and county elections as well as bond issues and propositions.

If you are interested in getting involved in making this happen, if you are a lawyer and if you know a lawyer or lawyers who might also be interested in preserving ballot images using TRO’s, please contact us at TrustVote.org as soon as possible, as we will need to issue these TRO’s for the most part BEFORE the election. And, as you might expect, organizing this effort will require money. So please DONATE WHATEVER YOU CAN to support to fight election fraud in our country.

THANK YOU SO MUCH on behalf of TrustVote and our challenged democracy!

Also here is the analysis by John Brakey of AUDIT-AZ of How the California Presidential Primary was , Stripped and Flipped: http://electionnightmares.com/

CAN VOTERS DO TO RECTIFY THESE PROBLEMS:

Election activist John Brakey and attorney William Risner assert that destroying ballot images is against Federal law: Federal law 52 U.S.C § 20701 requiring retention of federal election materials, provides a penalty of up to \$1,000 fine and one year in jail for premature destruction of that material (was formerly 42 U.S.C § 1974).

For the November elections, Brakey and Risner recommend the following strategy:

• File a public record request (ASAP) asking for ballot images for the last and the next election. The request should include other critical documents like the Cast Vote Record (CVR). We can provide a draft of what to request.

• If ballot images are or have been destroyed then file a special action Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which is usually easy to request.

• If they refuse your public records request for “ballot images,” then file another special action in the form of a Mandamus Act. When you win they have to pay all expenses and legal fees.

Additional efforts that may be necessary and are suggested by AUDIT-AZ member Mickey Duniho, a retired former NSA Cryptologist for 37 years. His recommendations are being added to our TRO.

• Do not transfer results from the DS850 to the central count computer until election day;

• Print the cast vote record serial number on each ballot so that an audit can link back to the original ballot as per how the system was federal certified by EAC;

• Mark every storage box containing ballots with the range of serial numbers contained in the box, so that an audit can easily find the box containing a ballot of interest.
……..

http://blackboxvoting.org/

http://markcrispinmiller.com/

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/

http://trustvote.org/

How to run, create ballots, and analyze exit polling to check truthfulness of ballot counts reported

7. November 7, 2016 at 4:46 pm

Part 1 – A Detailed Presentation on Fraction Magic and the Solution to it

In Part Two, which follows in the next email, I will also be going into which companies appear to be using it and how they are hiding from the American public.

In terms of understanding Fraction Magic more fully, it is the YouTube in Part I on (see paragraph #5 below) that helped me understand Fraction Magic the most. Paragraph #4 below gives you the contact details for John Brakey who will give people anywhere in the country guidance on filing ballot image requests in the counties that have them.

As mentioned in my earlier update, the only protection against vote fractionalizing is saving ballot images. This is done by making freedom of information requests. If the election official resists, then a TRO to save the ballot images can be presented in court. Guidelines for creating an effective TRO are presented towards the bottom in my last update. There are only ballot images on 40% of scanners in the U.S. There are some ballot images on some DRE’s. Nonetheless, having ballot images for 40% of voters is better than nothing. If the ballot images are saved, the next step is hand counting them which is very easy to accomplish with volunteers in close elections. If you, the reader, feel confused about how to make ballot image requests or how to organize TRO’s, please consult with
John Roberts Brakey of Audit Az, who is offering his cell phone number (520) 339-2696 and email johnbrakey@gmail.com at this time to help you.

You can email attorney Robert Fitrakis for assistance in filing ballot image requests at RobertFitrakis@gmail.com or call him at 614 374 2380. Please put the nature of your request in the title of the email to him.