Richard Charnin
Nov. 7, 2016
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
Unlike corporate mainstream polls, the 2016 Election Model provides two forecasts: the Recorded Vote and the True Vote. Pollsters are usually quite accurate in their projections of the Recorded Vote. But they avoid the fraud factor. The fraudulent Recorded Vote is never the same as the True Vote. Clinton won the recorded vote by 48.3-46.2%.
The Election Model is based on the effects of changes in party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind) from 2012 to 2016. Clinton led the final 9-poll average 45.8-43.3% (298-240 EV).
Election Model forecast: State party-ID weights were adjusted to Gallup party-affiliation survey weights. Gallup is the only poll dedicated to tracking national party affiliation.
After adjusting the polls for the Gallup voter affiliation (40I-32D-28R), undecided voters were allocated (UVA) to derive the final adjusted TRUE poll share. Typically the challenger (in this case Trump) wins the majority (75%) of the undecided vote.
Forecast before UVA: Trump wins 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV.
UVA adjustment: 75% of undecided voters allocated to Trump.
True Vote after UVA: Trump wins 48.4-44.3% with 352-186 EV.
Forecast Methodology
The 2016 party-ID for each state is calculated by applying the same proportional change from the 2012 state party-ID as the change from the 2012 National party-ID to the 2016 Gallup National survey party-ID. The popular vote win probability and corresponding Electoral Vote are estimated for each pre-election poll. State votes are forecast by applying national pre-election poll shares to the state party-ID.
The electoral vote is calculated two ways: 1) the total EV (snapshot) in which the winner of the state wins all of the state electoral votes and 2) the statistically expected EV (state win probability times the state electoral vote). Sensitivity Analysis tables show the effect of incremental vote shares on the total vote.
Sensitivity Analysis: Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA) effect on expected Electoral and Popular vote win probability
UVA Trump Clinton EV WinProb
50%….47.1….45.6…….310….. 75%
60%….47.6….45.1…….332….. 86%
75%….48.5….44.3…….352….. 96%
Note: The 2008 and 2012 election models exactly forecast the electoral vote (365 and 332 for Obama). But the True Votes were quite different. The 2008 model forecast that Obama would win 420 votes with a 58% share, exactly matching the state unadjusted exit poll aggregate. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 61-37%.
The 2012 model forecast that Obama would win 51.5% recorded and 55% True vote (380 EV}. The exit pollsters did not poll in 19 states. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/
| 9 Polls | Pct | Clinton | Trump | Johnson | Stein |
| Party-ID | Gallup Pct | ||||
| Ind | 40.0% | 33.8% | 43.6% | 8.9% | 3.8% |
| Dem | 32.0% | 88.1% | 6.9% | 1.3% | 1.7% |
| Rep | 28.0% | 5.6% | 87.8% | 3.9% | 0.3% |
| Calc | 94.7% | 43.29% | 44.67% | 5.07% | 2.14% |
| 9Poll Avg | 94.6% | 43.31% | 44.13% | 5.07% | 2.14% |
| UVA | 100.0% | 44.33% | 48.43% | 5.07% | 2.14% |
| Recorded | 98.77% | 48.25% | 46.17% | 3.29% | 1.07% |
| REPORTED | Vote | EVote | |||||
| Party ID | Ind | Dem | Rep | Clinton | Trump | Clinton | Trump |
| Ipsos | 16% | 45% | 38% | 43.0% | 39.0% | 317 | 221 |
| IBD | 37% | 34% | 29% | 41.0% | 43.0% | 216 | 322 |
| Rasmussen | 32% | 40% | 28% | 45.0% | 43.0% | 313 | 225 |
| Quinnipiac | 26% | 40% | 34% | 47.0% | 40.0% | 378 | 160 |
| Fox News | 19% | 43% | 38% | 48.0% | 44.0% | 317 | 221 |
| CNN | 43% | 31% | 26% | 49.0% | 44.0% | 362 | 176 |
| ABC | 29% | 37% | 29% | 47.0% | 43.0% | 317 | 221 |
| Gravis | 27% | 40% | 33% | 47.0% | 45.0% | 294 | 244 |
| LA Times | 30% | 38% | 32% | 42.6% | 48.2% | 180 | 358 |
| Average | 28.8% | 38.7% | 31.9% | 45.5% | 43.2% | 299 | 239 |
| Gallup Adj. | Vote | EVote | Trump | UVA | ||
| 40I-32D-28R | Clinton | Trump | Clinton | Trump | WinProb | WinProb |
| Ipsos | 37.9% | 36.4% | 288 | 250 | 25.2% | 96.2% |
| IBD | 40.2% | 43.2% | 216 | 322 | 88.3% | 99.5% |
| Rasmussen | 41.1% | 45.3% | 187 | 351 | 94.4% | 99.6% |
| Quinnipiac | 44.7% | 40.8% | 335 | 203 | 6.5% | 35.8% |
| Fox News | 44.2% | 43.9% | 255 | 283 | 45.3% | 66.1% |
| CNN | 48.6% | 44.4% | 335 | 203 | 7.0% | 13.7% |
| ABC | 46.8% | 47.0% | 249 | 289 | 53.9% | 58.0% |
| Gravis | 43.6% | 45.5% | 216 | 322 | 75.0% | 97.5% |
| LA Times | 40.3% | 49.8% | 51 | 487 | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Average | 43.3% | 44.1% | 236 | 302 | 74.7% | 91.4% |
| Calc pre UVA | 43.3% | 44.7% | 232 | 306 | 96.1% | |
| Calc post UVA | 44.3% | 48.4% | 186 | 352 | 100% |
| Forecast Vote | Recorded | Electoral | ||
| before UVA | Clinton % | Trump % | Clinton | Trump |
| Total | 42.9 | 44.4 | 232 | 306 |
| AK | 32.4 | 49.6 | 0 | 3 |
| AL | 37.4 | 51.0 | 0 | 9 |
| AR | 39.4 | 48.6 | 0 | 6 |
| AZ | 37.9 | 47.6 | 0 | 11 |
| CA | 45.7 | 41.0 | 55 | 0 |
| CO | 39.1 | 46.5 | 0 | 9 |
| CT | 44.2 | 40.5 | 7 | 0 |
| DC | 66.0 | 23.6 | 3 | 0 |
| DE | 47.6 | 39.7 | 3 | 0 |
| FL | 42.2 | 44.8 | 0 | 29 |
| GA | 40.5 | 47.7 | 0 | 16 |
| HI | 46.7 | 41.8 | 4 | 0 |
| IA | 39.4 | 46.1 | 0 | 6 |
| ID | 33.2 | 54.5 | 0 | 4 |
| IL | 45.8 | 42.4 | 20 | 0 |
| IN | 39.4 | 48.6 | 0 | 11 |
| KS | 33.9 | 52.3 | 0 | 6 |
| KY | 47.9 | 41.8 | 8 | 0 |
| LA | 38.6 | 45.7 | 0 | 8 |
| MA | 45.9 | 37.2 | 11 | 0 |
| MD | 51.4 | 36.7 | 10 | 0 |
| ME | 40.9 | 44.1 | 0 | 4 |
| MI | 44.1 | 44.0 | 16 | 0 |
| MN | 43.6 | 44.7 | 0 | 10 |
| MO | 40.3 | 48.0 | 0 | 10 |
| MS | 39.4 | 49.0 | 0 | 6 |
| MT | 36.1 | 52.3 | 0 | 3 |
| NC | 44.5 | 42.3 | 15 | 0 |
| ND | 38.3 | 50.0 | 0 | 3 |
| NE | 35.8 | 52.0 | 0 | 5 |
| NH | 38.1 | 46.6 | 0 | 4 |
| NJ | 42.8 | 41.2 | 14 | 0 |
| NM | 46.5 | 41.1 | 5 | 0 |
| NV | 42.7 | 44.4 | 0 | 6 |
| NY | 49.3 | 37.7 | 29 | 0 |
| OH | 41.6 | 46.7 | 0 | 18 |
| OK | 42.5 | 46.5 | 0 | 7 |
| OR | 42.9 | 43.3 | 0 | 7 |
| PA | 46.6 | 42.3 | 20 | 0 |
| RI | 48.7 | 35.4 | 4 | 0 |
| SC | 40.3 | 48.0 | 0 | 9 |
| SD | 37.5 | 50.4 | 0 | 3 |
| TN | 37.9 | 50.3 | 0 | 11 |
| TX | 40.1 | 47.5 | 0 | 38 |
| UT | 31.2 | 57.3 | 0 | 6 |
| VA | 41.2 | 47.0 | 0 | 13 |
| VT | 46.7 | 41.0 | 3 | 0 |
| WA | 42.8 | 46.6 | 0 | 12 |
| WI | 42.7 | 45.7 | 0 | 10 |
| WV | 48.2 | 39.5 | 5 | 0 |
| WY | 26.8 | 61.9 | 0 | 3 |
| PopVote | Exp. EV | Gallup | UVA | |||
| WinProb | Prob*EV | Clinton | Trump | Trump | Trump | |
| 91.4% | 365 | Actual | Actual | PreUVA | PostUVA | |
| 232 | 306 | 306 | 358 | |||
| 100.0% | 3.0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | AK | |
| 100.0% | 9.0 | 9 | 9 | 9 | AL | |
| 100.0% | 6.0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | AR | |
| 100.0% | 11.0 | 11 | 11 | 11 | AZ | |
| 22.5% | 12.4 | 55 | CA | |||
| 100.0% | 9.0 | 9 | 9 | 9 | CO | |
| 36.9% | 2.6 | 7 | CT | |||
| 0.0% | 0.0 | 3 | DC | |||
| 3.0% | 0.1 | 3 | DE | |||
| 96.0% | 27.8 | 29 | 29 | 29 | FL | |
| 99.9% | 16.0 | 16 | 16 | 16 | GA | |
| 17.7% | 0.7 | 4 | HI | |||
| 99.9% | 6.0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | IA | |
| 100.0% | 4.0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | ID | |
| 34.2% | 6.8 | 20 | IL | |||
| 100.0% | 11.0 | 11 | 11 | 11 | IN | |
| 100.0% | 6.0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | KS | |
| 99.9% | 8.0 | 8 | 8 | 8 | KY | |
| 100.0% | 8.0 | 8 | 8 | 8 | LA | |
| 2.4% | 0.3 | 11 | MA | |||
| 0.0% | 0.0 | 10 | MD | |||
| 98.2% | 3.9 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | ME |
| 77.7% | 12.4 | 16 | 16 | MI | ||
| 87.3% | 8.7 | 10 | 10 | 10 | MN | |
| 100.0% | 10.0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | MO | |
| 100.0% | 6.0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | MS | |
| 100.0% | 3.0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | MT | |
| 54.3% | 8.2 | 15 | 15 | NC | ||
| 100.0% | 3.0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | ND | |
| 100.0% | 5.0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | NE |
| 100.0% | 4.0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | NH | |
| 67.1% | 9.4 | 14 | 14 | NJ | ||
| 15.2% | 0.8 | 5 | NM | |||
| 92.5% | 5.6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | NV | |
| 0.1% | 0.0 | 29 | NY | |||
| 99.4% | 17.9 | 18 | 18 | 18 | OH | |
| 98.2% | 6.9 | 7 | 7 | 7 | OK | |
| 51.9% | 3.6 | 7 | 7 | OR | ||
| 23.1% | 4.6 | 20 | PA | |||
| 0.0% | 0.0 | 4 | RI | |||
| 100.0% | 9.0 | 9 | 9 | 9 | SC | |
| 100.0% | 3.0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | SD | |
| 100.0% | 11.0 | 11 | 11 | 11 | TN | |
| 100.0% | 38.0 | 38 | 38 | 38 | TX | |
| 100.0% | 6.0 | 6 | 6 | 6 | UT | |
| 99.7% | 13.0 | 13 | 13 | 13 | VA | |
| 12.1% | 0.4 | 3 | VT | |||
| 97.8% | 11.7 | 12 | 12 | 12 | WA | |
| 96.3% | 9.6 | 10 | 10 | 10 | WI | |
| 1.4% | 0.1 | 5 | WV | |||
| 100.0% | 3.0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | WY |
Richard Charnin's Blog 
Xoy
November 7, 2016 at 10:51 pm
So Clinton will win due to rigging? Damn..
Kevin Trye
December 11, 2016 at 6:14 pm
No, since the key states were republican-controlled. And there was a huge vote swing away from Clinton, even in strong democrat states. The democrats just pushed the wrong candidate, despised by too many. Billionaire Trump is no better of course, meaning we’re in for a tough 8 years of austerity measures for the poor and tax relief deals for the wealthy.
CarlAntoine
November 8, 2016 at 1:32 pm
Reblogged this on CarlAntoine and commented:
#BernieSanders #FeelTheBern #JillStein #JillNotHill {#Clinton #Trump} #MSMbias #Election2016 #WikiLeaks #Poll real
Richard Charnin
November 9, 2016 at 12:17 pm
You do not understand the model logic.
It is based on the latest polls adjusted for standard Gallup party-ID weighting and undecided voter allocation.
The model has performed very well. It makes sense intuitively.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/election-model-vs-recorded-vote/
I forecast the 2008 and 2012 recorded EV exactly.
But Obama did much better in the True vote.
He had to overcome massive fraud.
Track record:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/
Culture Vulture
November 9, 2016 at 6:41 pm
“True Vote 1: Adjusting for Gallup weights, Trump wins 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV.”
The EVs are spot on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016) –
Nominee Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
Party Republican Democratic
Home state New York New York
Running mate Mike Pence Tim Kaine
Projected electoral vote 306[1][2][3] 232[1][2][3]
States carried 30 + ME-02 20 + DC
Popular vote 59,479,278[4] 59,680,035[4]
Percentage 47.5% 47.7%
David Medici
November 10, 2016 at 10:13 am
Richard,
Ignore my request. Apparently I was on some kind of summary page. I get it now.
Eric Siegel
September 18, 2017 at 4:15 pm
This is nuts. Your track record is perfect when you evaluate your model by comparing it to your model, which is exactly what you do. You have ZERO evidence to suggest that there is any reason to trust your model more than the actual count.
Richard Charnin
September 28, 2017 at 8:08 pm
You are the one who is nuts. I can spot a troll quickly. You’re a troll.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/
Richard Charnin
September 28, 2017 at 11:44 pm
You are nuts. I forecast the last three elections EVs exactly. Can’t you read? Apparently not. Go back to the posts.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/
Eric Siegel
September 18, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Did you even bother to take into account rates of cross-party voting? As many as 10% of identified Dems actually voted for Trump in 2016, and similar rates of GOP ids voted for Clinton.
Richard Charnin
September 28, 2017 at 7:57 pm
Do you even bother to read my posts? You are wrong about 10% of Dems voting for Trump. Bernie Sanders voters defected to Stein, Trump, Johnson, or stayed home. I estimated that 86% of Dems voted for Clinton.