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.

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). The state party-ID weights were adjusted to Gallup party-affiliation survey weights. Gallup is the only poll dedicated to tracking national  party affiliation.

Election Model forecast:
Recorded Vote: Trump wins 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV.

True Vote: 75% of undecided voters allocated to Trump.
Trump wins 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV.

After adjusting the polls for the Gallup voter affiliation  (40I-32D-28R), undecided voters are allocated (UVA) to derive the final adjusted TRUE poll share. Typically the challenger (in this case Trump) gets approximately 75% of the undecided vote.

Undecided Voter Allocation Sensitivity Analysis

UVA  Trump Clinton  ExpEV  PopVote WinProb
50%….47.1….45.6…….310….. 75%
60%….47.6….45.1…….332….. 86%
75%….48.5….44.3……. 351….. 96%

The estimated popular vote win probability and corresponding 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 Gallup 2016 survey. The state votes  are calculated by applying the candidate national 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).

The Sensitivity Analysis tables show the effect of incremental vote shares on the total vote.

The 2008 and 2012 election models exactly forecast the electoral votes (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 Obama: 51.5% recorded and 55% True vote (380 EV}. But the pollsters failed to exit poll in 19 states, so I could not confirm the results. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 9-POLL  AVG
 Before UVA Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 40% 5% 33% 44% 8%
Dem 32% 1% 89% 6% 2%
Rep 28% 1% 5% 89% 3%
Total 94.6% 2.6% 42.9% 44.4% 4.7%
Electoral Vote 538 0 232 306 0
 Expected EV      228   310 
REPORTED PartyID         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 Adjusted

40I-32D-28R   ElectVote   Trump UVA
Adjusted Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Win Prob Win Prob
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 EVote before UVA   232 306   96.1%
True EVote after UVA 187 351   
 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
 
5 Comments

Posted by on November 7, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

5 responses to “2016 Election Model Forecast

  1. Xoy

    November 7, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    So Clinton will win due to rigging? Damn..

     
  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. 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%

     
  4. 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.

     

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: