2016 Election Scenario Analysis

23 Nov

Richard Charnin
Nov. 23, 2016

This is an analysis of four election scenarios.

1. Gallup Party-ID and True Vote Model (TVM) vote shares
2. Gallup Party-ID and National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares
3. NEP Party-ID and NEP vote shares
4. NEP Party-ID and TVM vote shares

It is a FACT: the Reported vote is NEVER equal to the True Vote. The pundits always brainwash the public into assuming that the Reported vote represents True voter intent.

The National Exit Poll is always forced to match the Reported vote  (view Scenario 3).
NEP Party-ID is 36D-33R-31I.
Others (including Johnson and Stein) have just 6.1% combined. Stein has 1%.

The True Vote Model (Scenario 1) uses Gallup Party-ID: 40I-32D-28R.
Trump leads Clinton by 2.18 million votes: 45.7-44.0%.  How many of the Other 10.3% voted for Jill Stein? Surely more than 1%. Probably close to 5%.

It is clear that the third party vote is a key factor. Jill Stein had an implausibly low 1% share. Where did her votes go?  Compare Trump’s 2.18 million True Vote margin in Scenario 1, in which third parties had 10.3%, to his negative margins in scenarios 2 and 3 where third parties had 6-7%. The differential  indicates that Stein did better than 1%. Her votes were stolen.

True Vote Sensitivity Analysis: Calculate Trump’s vote margins over a range of his shares of Republicans and Independents.

 1. Gallup/TVM Party-ID Clinton Trump Other Dem 32% 89% 9% 2% Rep 28% 7% 90% 3% Ind 40% 34% 44% 22% TVM Total 100% 44.0% 45.7% 10.3% Votes (mil) 133.26 58.69 60.87 13.70 2. Gallup/NEP Party-ID Clinton Trump Other Dem 32% 89% 8% 3% Rep 28% 8% 88% 4% Ind 40% 42% 46% 12% Total 100% 47.5% 45.6% 6.9% Votes (mil) 133.26 63.33 60.77 9.17 3. NEP/NEP Party-ID Clinton Trump Other Dem 36% 89% 8% 3% Rep 33% 8% 88% 4% Ind 31% 42% 46% 12% Total 100% 47.7% 46.2% 6.1% Votes (mil) 133.26 63.57 61.54 8.16 4. NEP/TVM Party-ID Clinton Trump Other Dem 36% 89% 9% 2% Rep 33% 7% 90% 3% Ind 31% 34% 44% 22% Total 100% 44.9% 46.6% 8.5% Votes (mil) 133.26 59.82 62.07 11.37

True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis

 Scenario 1 Trump % Rep Trump 85.0% 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 93.0% % Ind Trump 48% 46.2% 46.7% 47.3% 47.8% 48.4% 44% 44.6% 45.1% 45.7% 46.2% 46.8% 40% 43.0% 43.5% 44.1% 44.6% 45.2% Clinton 48% 43.6% 43.0% 42.4% 41.9% 41.3% 44% 45.2% 44.6% 44.0% 43.5% 42.9% 40% 46.8% 46.2% 45.6% 45.1% 44.5% Share Margin 48% 2.6% 3.7% 4.8% 6.0% 7.1% 44% -0.6% 0.5% 1.6% 2.8% 3.9% 40% -3.8% -2.7% -1.6% -0.4% 0.7% Vote (000) Margin 48% 3.5 5.0 6.4 7.9 9.4 44% -0.8 0.7 2.2 3.7 5.2 40% -5.1 -3.6 -2.1 -0.6 0.9

Summary Comparison (based on Party-ID)

 Unadjusted Exit Poll Reported Vote True Vote Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Avg 48.4% 45.8% 46.1% 49.6% 44.6% 48.4% Diff -2.6% 3.5% 3.9% OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 43.9% 51.4% NC* 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 45.9% 46.6% NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 44.6% 46.4% PA* 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.8% 45.8% MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.7% 45.3% 47.8% MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 41.5% 51.7% IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 41.1% 50.6% FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.9% 47.7% WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 48.2% 45.2% Share of Indep-endents Unadjusted Exit Poll Reported Vote True Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Avg 47.3% 40.3% 39.2% 53.1% 36.1% 50.2% Diff -7.0% 13.9% 14.1% OH 50.0% 34.0% 38.0% 52.0% 38.0% 52.0% NC 44.0% 44.0% 38.5% 56.0% 35.0% 49.0% NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 36.0% 52.0% PA 50.0% 43.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 53.0% MI 32.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.3% 45.0% 56.3% MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 39.0% 45.0% IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 51.0% FL 48.0% 43.0% 48.0% 50.5% 32.0% 53.0% WI 48.0% 37.0% 43.0% 46.0% 43.0% 46.0%

Posted by on November 23, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

23 responses to “2016 Election Scenario Analysis”

1. November 24, 2016 at 12:00 am

Can you give a summary conclusion of this please? You state that it is clear third party votes matter but it is unclear how this is demonstrated by the above. Thanks.

• November 24, 2016 at 2:56 am

Compare Trump’s 2.18 million vote margin in Scenario 1 (True Vote) where (Stein +Johnson = 10.3%) to his negative margin in scenarios 2,3.
Takeaway: Stein did better than 1%, but her votes were stolen by HRC.

• November 25, 2016 at 11:38 pm

I see. But can you extrapolate how much better Jill did? Thanks.

• November 26, 2016 at 3:20 pm

I would estimate Jill had 4-5%

2. November 24, 2016 at 3:14 pm

Most of us are not as Mathematically inclined as yourself. I appreciate all of your hard work but it is very hard to understand what it is you are saying with all of it. I get that you are saying “where did Jill’s votes go” paraphrased, but it would be nice if one day you would sit down and write an explanation of what all of these numbers mean, or provide an index for your terminology. Perhaps you can’t be bothered so sorry in advance.

• November 25, 2016 at 7:45 pm

You need to familiarize yourself with the National Exit Poll Party-ID demographic.

The numbers are percentage vote shares and party-ID split

The four sets of scenarios display total vote shares given National Exit Poll Party-ID vs. Gallup voter affiliation and NEP vs. True Vote Model vote shares

The sensitivity analysis calculates Trumps total vote share for various shares of Independents and Republicans.

• November 26, 2016 at 3:29 pm

I have clearly stated my methodologies on my blog and in my books.
You need to get up to speed and learn the basics of election math.

3. November 24, 2016 at 8:03 pm

Jill Stein’s popularity of around 5% not 1% vote share would make sense. Just examine Humbolt county in CA, which ran their non-corruptible open source voting system http://bit.ly/humboltcounty-2016

• November 25, 2016 at 8:05 pm

Humboldt County is one of the most progressive counties in CA. It is the only county to use Open Source software to photograph, count and audit the ballots. Bernie had 71% in the primary, his highest vote share of all 58 counties. Hillary won Humboldt by 56.4-33.1%. Jill had 5.2%, Johnson 3.4%. It is unlikely HRC is leading CA by the reported 61.6-33% with just 1.8% to Jill and 3.4% to Johnson.

• November 27, 2016 at 1:03 pm

I agree. It would shock me if Jill Stein’s votes were not stolen on a grand scale in CA (not in Humboldt). What I found interesting is that HRC ran so many strong anti-Trump commercials, even in far northern CA…. one should ask WHY? Wasn’t CA supposed to be in the bag? There are a lot of progressively minded/civic minded Bernie people who are angry about the stolen primary in CA who voted for Jill Stein but the reported numbers don’t show that…. again, WHY? To claim the popular vote and create a narrative? Isn’t CA THE key to the popular vote for the progressives? I am hoping that Jill Stein raises money to recount at least some counties in CA!!! It’s very important to show what actually happened here to spur reform.

And… can we please all put our heads together and figure out how Jill Stein can challenge the results in New Hampshire! That state requires presidential candidates to get at least 9% to ask for a recount…. surely, there must be a legal way around this insane law? Federal law? They are actually reporting that Jill Stein got only 0.9% of the vote…. does everyone remember the absolute LANDSLIDE victory for Bernie in NH in the primary? Who do you think those people voted for in the general? Almost all of them magically went over to the HRC side? It’s also one of the closest margins in the general…. no one will ever convince me that it is even possible that Jill Stein could have gotten less than 1 percent there. Richard gives us math and I so appreciate that… but to those who are complaining about not understanding his math, just apply some good ol’ fashioned common sense and it becomes obvious that something happened to Jill Stein’s votes in the general…. where did they go??

• November 28, 2016 at 1:20 am

It could make sense for Jill to request a vote in a county where we think fraud was most likely. A progressive county where the machinery (DS850 or DS200 scanners) had the audit enabled and ballot images not destroyed and the registrar is honest?

4. November 25, 2016 at 1:51 pm

Hi Mr. Charnin, thanks for your eye-opening work.

I apologize for commenting in an unrelated post. But have you considered writing an analysis piece on Jill Stein’s attempts to perform an audit in three different states? Everyone is going to be very interested in your analysis because (being a long-time reader of yours) it would seem that recounts would be more effective in states like California. I’m also really interested in whether or not Stein has picked the right states to perform the recount.

• November 27, 2016 at 1:07 pm

Hi Joe, I saw an interview with Bob Fitrakis, one of Jill Stein’s closest advisors on the recount issue…. and from this, I believe it is a matter of cost…. CA would cost many many millions. However, what I want to see happen, at least initially, is a recount of at least some CA counties.

• November 27, 2016 at 5:26 pm

Open Letter to Jill Stein

Jill,

I believe that you are doing the recount because you believe your votes have been stolen and that this is a great opportunity to bring the election fraud bogeyman out in the open. I have been doing election fraud analysis since 2003.

I believe you made a mistake in picking just the three states to recount. What about the states that Clinton barely won?
Like VA ME MN NH CO NV

In addition, I would recommend a recount in CA, a state that Clinton stole from Bernie. Did Clinton pad her margin at your expense in CA and elsewhere to show that she won the popular vote? Do you really believe she did better than Obama in CA?

Check out the results in Humboldt County, CA. It’s the only county in the US which uses an Open Source system to count and audit the results. It is a foolproof system. You had 5.2% of the vote in Humboldt, but just 1.8% in CA.

Did you actually win 5% in CA? That would add 300,000 votes to your CA total. If you had 5% nationally, it would mean that you had 6.5 million votes, not the 1.2 million you are credited for.

In conclusion, recount everything. And make sure the recount is done fairly. They rig recounts too, you know.

Best,
Richard Charnin

• November 27, 2016 at 10:55 pm

I’d sign that letter! and I so very much agree about potentially rigging CA to run up the popular vote.. I highly suspect that’s what happened!

• November 28, 2016 at 11:57 am

Good, Richard, that you’ve sent the letter to Jill Stein. Many of us certainly hope that the recounts show her numbers as far greater than those reported. My guess is that Clinton’s team has decided to join the recount process in order to re-rig the votes and thus be found ‘innocent’ of any previous manipulations.

5. November 25, 2016 at 11:36 pm

Richard, do you think the recounts in WI, MI and PA are likely to produce anything? Nate SIlver has been poo-pooing the notion all over Twitter.

• November 26, 2016 at 3:20 pm

We will see. No predictions.

6. November 27, 2016 at 5:13 pm

Are there any other particular states you think Jill stein should request recounts for? https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802633104166887424?lang=en

• November 27, 2016 at 5:44 pm

CO ME MN NH NV VA

• November 27, 2016 at 10:50 pm

Hi Richard… why these states specifically? Do you know a way around NH’s rule of not allowing a presidential candidate to request a recount unless they have at least 9% of the vote?

• November 27, 2016 at 10:52 pm

Never mind on the first question.. the states HRC barely won…

I want parts of CA recounted too!

7. November 27, 2016 at 5:38 pm

correction: ‘I’m ex-Uk so don’t think is right for me to pass on anything to Jill myself’. Fine with me if this and last comments not public.