RSS

2016 Election Model Forecast

07 Nov

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.

Recorded Vote: Trump wins 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV.
True Vote: 75% of undecided voters allocated to Trump.
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/

Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Party-ID Gallup 9 Polls
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% 43.26% 44.20% 5.07% 2.14%
9PollAvg 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 Party-ID      Vote   EVote  
POLL 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 42.9% 44.4% 237 301 74.7% 96.6%
Recorded EV before UVA   231 307   96.1%
True EV       after UVA 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
Advertisements
 
11 Comments

Posted by on November 7, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

11 responses to “2016 Election Model Forecast

  1. 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.

       
  2. 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

     
  3. 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 (election fraud shows Trump with 367 EV) and practically (near EV match to recorded)
    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/election-model-vs-recorded-vote/

    I got the 2008 and 2012 recorded EV exactly right.
    But Obama did much better in the True vote.
    He had to overcome massive fraud.
    My Track record:
    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

     
  4. 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%

     
  5. 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.

     
  6. 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.

     
  7. 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 Hillary. Bernie Sanders voters defected to Stein, Trump, Johnson, or stayed home. I estimated that 86% of Dems voted for Clinton.

       

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: