RSS

About Me

After having posting on various websites as “TruthIsAll” since 2002 (and getting banned in a few), I felt that it would be fun to create my own blog. I don’t expect that I will ban myself. And no one can accuse me of spamming.

This document contains links to my WEB/BLOG POSTS as well as to spreadsheets (data and models), discussion forums, interviews and articles by election activists.

After graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, I was hired as a numerical control engineer/programmer for Grumman Aerospace Corporation. GAC was a major defense/aerospace manufacturer which built the Lunar Module, Navy fighter jets and commercial aircraft.

I obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University in 1969 and an MS in Operations Research from Polytechnic Institute of NY in 1973.

In 1976, I moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for White Weld & Co, an old-line investment bank that was acquired by Merrill Lynch in 1978. When personal computers first became available in 1982, I converted many of the mainframe FORTRAN application programs to Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets – and years later to Excel.

As an independent software consultant, I specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations.

I never imagined that years later I would be posting election analyses on the Internet. After the 2000 fiasco, I was motivated to develop a robust forecast model. In July 2004 I began posting weekly election projections based on state and national pre-election polls.

The corporate media and politicians avoid the subject of systemic election fraud like the plague. But unadjusted state and national exit polls have been confirmed by the True Vote Model. The Democratic true share has consistently exceeded the official recorded share. I have written two books proving systemic election fraud

In the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy. Of the 274 state presidential exit polls, 135 exceeded the margin of error (131 in favor of the Republicans). The probability is E-116. Just 14 of the 274 exit polls would be expected to exceed the margin of error. It is mathematical proof beyond any doubt of a conspiracy of systemic election fraud favoring the Republicans.

The 2004 Election Model was the first to use Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote. The final projection had Kerry winning 337 electoral votes and 51.8% of the two-party vote, closely matching the unadjusted exit polls. His EV win probability was 98%.

Following the election, I posted exit poll analyses on various election forums which sparked heated debates and attracted hundreds of viewers. Since 2004, my focus has been on developing election models to estimate the True Vote in presidential and congressional elections.

In 2008, I exactly forecast Obama’s recorded vote (365 EV, 53% vote share). The Monte Carlo simulation indicated he had a 100% EV win probability. But the True Vote Model indicated that Obama had 420 EV and a 58% vote share, exactly matching the unadjusted exit polls.

In 2012, the Election Model recorded vote forecast was once again on the money (332 EV, 51%). His EV win probability was 100%. But the TVM indicated that Obama had 391 EV and 55%. The National Election Pool (six corporate media giants) decided not to exit poll in 19 states. The 31 unadjusted exit polls have not been released.

In 2012, I shifted focus to the JFK assassination. These are my JFK posts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15vokd2I6Zd32OWUvkQ29furIWkOPWZ9Pwms3Wy4Sc6E/pub

JFK Calc is a spreadsheet database of suspicious and unnatural witness deaths and other statistical anomalies. Many witnesses who were called to testify in four investigations died unnaturally. The probability is one in trillions – absolute mathematical proof of a conspiracy.

My book was published in Oct. 2014: Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

 

60 responses to “About Me

  1. Renee Kovacs

    August 11, 2011 at 4:26 am

    Will you be commenting on the Wisconsin recall results, and how they compare to your forecasts?

     
  2. MalleusMaleficarum

    November 4, 2011 at 6:45 am

    In addition to your excellent papers for mathematicians, please, write a down-to-earth textbook for – say, the ninth grade reading level – sans mathematics.

     
    • Rik Smoody

      November 13, 2015 at 5:02 pm

      Give the 9th graders a motivation to learn some math. Keep the math. Explanations or links to explanations would be adequate.

       
  3. davidgmills

    June 7, 2012 at 3:54 am

    Will I get banned here?

     
  4. Victor Provenzano

    November 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Richard, your piece on Roper’s raw exit poll data from 1988 to 2008 is quite chilling. Yet it strikes me that a slight change in your argument concerning the nature of this data might significantly improve the chances that your statistical reasoning will be more widely entertained in the future. Given that “fraud” is a more or less precise legal term, instead of using the omnibus term “fraud” to explain the rather glaring exit poll discrepancy, one might, for instance, distinguish between the issues of the number of “uncounted votes,” the number of legally & illegally “suppressed votes” (to the degree to which they can be merely a subset of the “uncounted votes”), & the number of “stolen votes” (whether they might be stolen by electronic or non-electronic means). It seems to me that all of these various categories of votes do not fall unambiguously under the legal rubric of the term “fraud.” If your argument were refined to reflect these kinds of distinctions, it might enable it to finally have a good bit more of the impact that it seems to deserve.

    Sincerely,

    Victor Provenzano

     
    • Tony L

      November 10, 2012 at 6:27 pm

      Interested in N Silver criticism. I prefer code in python or haskell or even
      shell script. OK for proprietary or closed, but like OPEN SOURCE. I am reading the Silver Book, covering predictions in many fields. Thanks, some
      do NOT use ‘spreadsheets’, Excel and some prefer STRICT functional programming like Haskell. Note: I am ‘not in politics’ and have no apparent conflict of interest. Preferably, standards of the ‘algorithms’
      should meet SSRN or even sciencedaily.com, but be ‘practical’ and not
      ‘arcane science.’

       
  5. Dylia

    November 18, 2012 at 2:18 am

    Richard, what a gem you are! Have you a comment on the recent letter released by Anonymous group as to the ORCA server disarmament on Election Day?

     
    • Richard Charnin

      November 18, 2012 at 4:27 am

      Thank you, Dylia,

      Yes, I believe they did it. I hope they provide proof.

       
  6. Martin Truther

    December 18, 2012 at 2:11 am

    I am extremely excited about your work. I know that communicating results of statistical explorations is difficult. Have you considered the possibility of an animation to dramatize the basic concepts, discrepancies and red-shifts? If we could distill it to an animation with punch like Ben Cohen’s animation re: military spending as oreo cookies, we’d have a good shot at making people aware of it.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      December 18, 2012 at 11:48 am

      Martin,

      I have not thought of animation, although I have thought of a Powerpoint presentation – but have not done it.
      I just looked at the Cookie animation. Very good, but it’s notmy style. After the new year, I will look at creating a visual.

       
  7. The MUSEman

    August 13, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Interesting website… I have a few questions:

    – Is there any example of an election which, when put through your analysis, would be considered “fair”?
    – In your opinion, would Voter ID, mandatory voting, elimination of early voting, extension of voting time for offshore military, elimination of same-day voter registration, or scheduling a “Voting Holiday” (eg: As in Greece, where everything is closed for 2 days except mandatory services and polling places) serve to help or hurt “fairness”?
    – To what effect does “voting machine tampering” affect the “red-state” bias, as technicians who maintain voting machines are typically Union, Democrat-leaning personnel?
    – Any gauge on how Liberals, Democrats, and/or Progressives view your model and analysis? I would think they would be screaming your results from every rooftop, and yet I found your site serendipitously through a Google search.

    Thanks for your work, and regards,

     
    • Richard Charnin

      August 15, 2013 at 1:51 pm

      1. Elections in Oregon and Washington state. Oregon has mandatory random county hand recounts. I document everything in my two books on Election Fraud.

      2. These would generally have a negative effect in limiting the voter turnout. So-called voter fraud is virtually non-existent. Check the statistical studies. Read “The Myth of Voter Fraud” by Lorraine Minnite. Of course there are a handful of voters who have committed fraud – like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

      3. “Voting machine tampering” is systemic in all states, red and blue. Red states to pad the popular vote, Blue states to pick up electoral votes. Voting machines are pre-programmed by right wing companies. Election officials and technicians are not typically union Democrats, they are a mix of Democrats and Republicans. In any case, technicians basically just administer the machine set-up, but are not programmers. Voting machine manufacturing personnel do the coding and make any required last-minute”patches” – like in Ohio.

      4. Activists who are interested in a solid, unbiased mathematical analysis appreciate the models although very few actually understand the details and actually run them. If you would care to do so, check out the models linked from by blog. They are google doc spreadsheets and are public. Some allow for user input.

      In conclusion, I have come to the conclusion that we do not have a functioning democracy. Both parties are in collusion to perpetuate the myth of a viable, fair, open election process. The Democrats would win every election if they were fair, given the growth in minority voters. But they let the GOP win elections to keep the myth of a 50/50 electorate alive. That’s why they do not call for verifiable voting.

      The National Election Pool eliminated exit polls in 19 states in the last election. That why I probably will no longer forecast or calculate the True Vote in future elections. Systemic election fraud has been proven mathematically.

      My forecasting track record has been right on target. The True Vote Model matched the unadjusted exit polls in 2004. It exactly forecast Obama’s 2008 recorded popular and electoral vote (365) and 2012 (332). Of course, his True Vote was much higher in both elections. The True Vote Model exactly matched his 58.0% unadjusted state exit poll aggregate in 2008. In 2012, his True Vote was 55%. The NEP conducted just 31 state presidential exit polls in 2012. None have been released. But we need 50 state polls to compare the weighted average exit poll share to the True Vote Model.

      Thanks for your interest.

       
  8. N. S.

    July 16, 2014 at 7:14 am

    I love your work and have been reading it extensively, and we are in the middle of a long criminal investigation here in Hidalgo County, Texas that I am afraid isn’t going to get to the bottom of all this.

    Who specializes in looking at ES&S irregularities?

    Or voting data?

    I have a bunch of audit log files, and other materials, and I suspect ballot stuffing has occurred. And continues to occur. The best example I can find is in 2008.

    Where is the proper venue to discuss that?

    https://docs.google.com/folderview?id=0B6DNaPzWFilVdnpYalNPTTdwVzA&usp=docslist_api#

    Particularly in the 8PTXHIDA and 8PTXHIDASUM spread sheets you will notice some races are missing the COUNTY1 designation…

    And further, Democrat turnout it 645%.

    There appears to be about 601 “extra” votes.

    Any thoughts?

     
  9. Lori Stacey

    November 7, 2014 at 1:10 am

    I am desperately looking for someone that can do a mathematical analysis on my statewide race and 2 others. There was massive voter suppression tricks by our state establishment Republican thugs, a county auditor in our largest county that was even RECREATING ballots spit out of the scanners for ridiculous, obviously unlawful reasons and all kinds of corruption here.

    I cannot accept these numbers that they did end up throwing us as they feel literally UNBELIEVABLE! All the precinct numbers are still up on website. Can you or someone you know help??? This was my 2nd run for Secretary of State in South Dakota and I will not swallow with 100% of our ballots going through scanners that I could possibly have gotten HALF the votes as 4 years ago. It defies all logic and my platform is reform, going back to hand-counting, opening up ballot access, bringing back recalls, etc.

    Here is a link to results: http://electionresults.sd.gov/resultsSW.aspx?type=SWR&map=CTY
    We were great 3rd party and Independent candidates for SOS, Governor and US Senate. Please help if you can. I would be forever grateful and hopefully get some peace with this and some much-needed sleep.

     
  10. Dave Kesselring

    November 18, 2014 at 9:12 am

    As you are probably aware, time is almost always limited. If I take hours reading this blog will I find possibilities of proving voting machine fraud in my county? Has it been proven successfully through mathematics? If it has been proven, has anything positive come out of that? Thanks.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      November 18, 2014 at 7:27 pm

      I assume you mean Election Fraud committed by election officials, not Voting fraud by voters which is virtually non-existent.

      My analyses proving election fraud to a virtual mathematical certainty is based on national and state exit poll and recorded vote data. That’s because the National Election Pool (six media giants who fund the exit pollsters) won’t release raw precinct exit poll data.

      The only time pure, unadjusted exit poll data of individual precincts was made available was in the Ohio 2004 presidential election. Analysis of the exit poll discrepancies resulted in a high probability that the vote counts were fraudulent.

      The NEP stopped presidential exit polling in 19 states in 2012.

      The exit pollsters always adjust the unadjusted exit poll data in order to force a match to the recorded vote.
      They do this even if the adjustments are mathematically impossible.

      The NEP wants the voting public to never consider Election Fraud.
      The presumption is that it does not exist.
      But they want us to consider voter fraud, which is non-existent.
      Dosen’t make any sense, does it?

       
  11. Dave Kesselring

    November 18, 2014 at 11:06 pm

    Has anybody just taken a precinct or two and gone door to door to get a count to compare to the government’s version?

     
  12. Dave

    December 17, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    The more I get into this analysis, the more I’m convinced that something is indeed fishy. However, has anything been done to examine the nature of these large wards and what else, if anything, can explain the slant on these curves? Turnout is one example. If GOP recruiting is more effective then one would expect more votes in these wards. I went through your spreadsheets and can see what you are doing so I understand that part. What I’m having trouble with is the expectation that the lines would be parallel? I would expect the lines to jump around more than they are, and perhaps trend in one direction or the other, but you are clearly hitting a point where these lines go straight, and in opposite directions; clearly indicating something is amiss. Good work Richard.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      December 20, 2014 at 6:41 pm

      Dave,

      Thanks. Parallel lines could also indicate that the fraud is constant across all precincts. Please post your comment as a reply to the relevant post.

       
  13. Ramon F Herrera

    January 2, 2015 at 8:58 am

    Richard:

    I have a suggestion for you. Send your study to Rachel Maddow with the following conclusion:

    “It is mathematical proof beyond any doubt of a conspiracy of systemic election fraud favoring the Republicans”

    I predict that she will become ecstatic. After she recovers, you tell her:

    “Those exact same calculations show, beyond any doubt, that JFK died as a result of a conspiracy. If you believe one, you must accept the other”.

     
  14. Richard Charnin

    January 5, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    Hahaha. Why don’t you send it to her?

     
  15. Jeff

    April 13, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Have you analyzed 2014 IL gubernatorial? Democratic candidate Quinn was leading in pre-election polls. Quinn had outperformed polls his entire career. Yet lost per election totals by 5%.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      April 15, 2015 at 7:58 am

      No, but I will if I can get state precinct totals for Cum. Vote Share analysis.

       
      • sean

        July 30, 2015 at 12:15 am

        Dear Mr. Charnin,

        The Illinois State Board of Elections has published precinct level data on the results of the 2014 general election. As Jeff mentioned the Illinois Governor’s race was the one in which incumbent Pat Quinn who was leading in the pre-election polls and tied in the exit polls, supposedly lost by over 4% once the machine totals were counted. The link for the precinct-data is
        http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/ElectionInformation/ElectionResults/43/ByOffice/43-180-GOVERNOR%20AND%20LIEUTENANT%20GOVERNOR-2014GE.csv

        Do you think it will be possible to to the cumulative vote share analysis on this race?

        Sean

         
      • Richard Charnin

        July 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm

        I cannot work with the data in csv format.
        Send me an excel version.

        RC

         
      • Richard Charnin

        July 30, 2015 at 3:25 pm

        Sean,

        I cannot work with the data as it is formatted.
        I need the data in spreadsheet format.

         
  16. sean

    July 30, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    Dear Mr. Charnin,

    I have an excel file as requested. Where can I email it to you?

    my email is illinoispoliticalobserver@gmail.com

    Thanks,

     
  17. sean

    July 30, 2015 at 4:30 pm

    Or you can download it yourself at this website (click on the tab for governor and download)

    http://illinoiselectiondata.com/analysis/precinct/byprecinct.php

     
    • Richard Charnin

      July 30, 2015 at 5:13 pm

      Ok, I have the file. I will get back to you with a link to the CVS.

       
    • Richard Charnin

      July 31, 2015 at 2:09 pm

      Ok, I just posted the analysis.

       
      • seanvinck

        July 31, 2015 at 4:50 pm

        Dear Sir, Thanks very much.

        You know I took a screen shot of the initial exit poll posted online on election night, which was subsequently altered. If you want i can send to you.

        What is the best addresS?

         
      • Richard Charnin

        July 31, 2015 at 8:34 pm

        Sean,

        Any comments on the analysis?
        I have included a True Vote Model analysis to the spreadsheet/post.

        It’s further confirmation that the election was likely stolen.
        We have pre-election polls, exit polls, Cum vote shares and the True Vote Model.
        I posted the links to the analysis on Facebook.
        My email is richardcharnin@comcast.net

        RC

         
  18. seems

    November 13, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    hi Richard….followed you for a long time at DU and RI …miss you…just heard you on Thom Hartman

     
  19. Jared Diamond

    March 24, 2016 at 2:53 am

    Hi there Richard, ran into your articles, love your work. I was wondering if you include early ballots in your “final recorded results”, I would assume a mathematician like you would, but I just want to know for sure if what you’re saying is accurate. (especially ’cause HRC gets far more from early ballots than Bernie. Also, is there a way to try to suppress this stuff. Could one try to contact local offices to use more paper/hand out ballots?

     
    • Richard Charnin

      March 24, 2016 at 10:03 pm

      The final recorded results are all the recorded votes.
      Why would I not include them?
      Yes, Hillary got more early ballots than Bernie. They are still suspect, right?

       
  20. Cindy

    April 16, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    Richard, I have read all your posts on the 2016 primary very carefully multiple times and I watched an interview with you online. I am 100% convinced you are right and the election is being stolen from Bernie. I would like to broadcast your results more widely. I write for a living and I could potentially help you make your message more “digestible” for a general audience. Can you please contact me at the private email I submitted with this message?

    Also, can you please explain in detail exactly where and how you obtain the UNadjusted polling numbers. I want to look at this in more detail and follow it for the New York primary.

    Could you also point to other people and other work that show similar patterns, especially where HRC is involved. I’m mostly interested in the 2016 primary but also in her 2008 run against Obama and potentially her senate runs in N.Y. Were there any trends in 2008 to show that voter machine fraud kicked in after a certain point or was it there from the beginning? Was there an increase in the degree of voter machine fraud as the race unfolded?

    We only have a narrow window of time to prevent this election from being stolen but we need to try! We also all need to convince Bernie Sanders, Jane Sanders, and Jeff Weaver to have a news conference or otherwise publicly draw attention to this issue… BEFORE the New York primary. We need Bernie to demand a recount of New York, regardless of the outcome, so he receives the pledged delegates he so rightfully deserves!

    Thank you for your very important work!

     
    • Richard Charnin

      April 17, 2016 at 1:30 am

      Cindy,
      The “unadjusted” exit poll numbers may have already been adjusted as of 8pm closing. They could very well have been adjusted prior to that in which case Bernie did even better. I use the exit polls posted by Ted Soares in electionintegrity.org. As shown in the tables in my blog posts, the polls were screenshots from CNN.

      I suggest you read my posts on the 2008 primary, in which Clinton ran against Obama. I note anomalies. In particular, Operation Chaos and the exit poll discrepancies.
      http://richardcharnin.com/2008PrimariesLinks.htm

      RC

       
      • Cindy

        April 17, 2016 at 3:07 pm

        Thank you for your response Richard! I’m a tad confused. I’m assuming that the exit poll data on electionintegrity.org and CNN come from the same data source… is this true? In so, I’m assuming you captured screen shots from both? Also, did you watch the exit poll data throughout the day… did you plot this on a graph, and if so, did you see any sudden/abrupt changes in trajectory?

        I have shown many people your blog posts…. the problem is people have trouble understanding the math and the complexities of this topic. I think we need to find a way to report on your research in a more digestible way and then link to the more complicated analyses for those who want to see the details…. to zero in on things that everyone can understand… like the fact that the changes in the late day exit polls and the “adjusted” exit polls all favor HRC… not even once do they favor Bernie Sanders.

        I am livid that NO ONE is reporting on this! I have contacted the Young Turks, Democracy Now, and other alternative media in hopes they cover it. Democracy Now did run a story about voter machine fraud in late Feb of this year but it was not specifically about this primary nor did it provide the specific proof you are providing: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen

        I think they should follow up with you. Would you be willing to be interviewed? Do you know the fellows they interviewed on this subject?

        I’m thinking about contacting the BBC and other European media to see if they’ll cover it… we need this picked up by AP! If the word of this really got out there, and more people understood that this is REAL evidence, and that someone is WATCHING this unfold and keeping track of it… I think maybe the rigging would cease or least be curtailed…. and maybe more of the so called “super” delegates would vote for Bernie.

        In my opinion, the DNC is committing political suicide by rigging voting machines (or not correcting this) and allowing all the other election fraud to run rampant, like the registration issues with people being dropped from the rolls or their party affiliations switched without their knowledge so they are no longer eligible to vote in the primary.

         
    • Richard Charnin

      April 17, 2016 at 8:09 pm

      I told you where I got the exit poll numbers from. My message is very digestible – if one is truly interested in knowing the truth. You have my blog and my books. No offense, but I do not collaborate with anyone. You are free to show any and all of my work to TYT. Tell them to buy my books. I appreciate your support.

       
      • Cindy

        April 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm

        Richard, while I partially agree with you, I do not completely agree. Recently, as just one example, I attempted to show your blog posts to a very serious Bernie supporter (someone who has put in hundreds of hours) and she was just too overwhelmed to follow it completely… and too anxious to get back to phone banking and doing other things that seem more obvious to her. What you are presenting is NOT obvious to most people. It must be studied… the nuances of what you are saying must be teased out of some of the posts you have made… what may seem obvious to you will not seem obvious to most. Keep in mind that most people do not have a math background or even a science background.

        I actually write for a living (scientist by training) so I do know something about about making a complicated topic less complicated/more digestible for a general audience. Most people will only “dig deeper” if they are strongly compelled to do so by a straightforward message that really hooks them. I would still like to help with that, as time permits, if you should become interested. And yes… I have shared links to your posts many places but a simplified summary of what you are finding is what is needed I think for your message to really break through to a large number of people…. for people to truly get it! To many, “math” seems like “hocus pocus” but I think with some effort, a simplified summary of the key elements of your work could dispel that.

        If someone from the Bernie campaign contacted you, would you be willing to talk with them one on one about your findings? What about one of the high profile supporters of Bernie? This would help a lot I think. For this to be taken seriously and become known to a significant percentage of those voting in this primary, I think we need the Bernie campaign and or one or more of their high profile supporters talking about it…. and we need a simplified summary to point to when they do.. which of course can contain links to your posts and books for more detail.

        I am outraged by what is happening and I commend you for the work you are doing… I just want a lot more people to know about it and really get that it is STRONG evidence of voter machine fraud.

         
  21. Cindy

    April 17, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Richard I have another important question… I read articles like this all the time:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/15/are-two-polls-showing-sanders-winning-with-latino-voters-in-new-york-correct/

    Regarding this statement from the above article, “Projecting who will win the Latino vote, or even who has won it according to results versus exit polling, has been one of the most contentious issues this Democratic election cycle. In an under-covered story, Bernie Sanders won the Latino vote in Illinois – narrowly according to exit polls, more decisively if majority Latina and Latino wards in Chicago and nearby suburbs are indicative. NBC, however, had projected a much larger thirty-four point win for Sanders with Latinos in Illinois. In Florida, which voted the same day, NBC projected just a five point loss with hispanic voters for Sanders; he lost by thirty-six according to exit polling.”

    Do you you think the discrepancies could be due to the exit polling in question being ADJUSTED in Illinois, and Florida? So, Bernie actually won much more of the Latino vote than the adjusted exit polls, i.e. “adjusted” results, i.e. voter machine rigging, showed?

     
  22. Richard Charnin

    April 17, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    Exit polls are always adjusted in favor of the establishment candidate. Bernie is being cheated left and right.

     
  23. rferrisx

    April 21, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    My comment is that the often heard argument that Bernie does not win the vote of people of color is a well orchestrated lie perpetrated by the media throughout the election. I suspect the votes of people of color in general and those votes of people of color for Bernie specifically are being suppressed. From the NYT data, I noted that Bernie won 37% in NYC but 48% in the rest of NY and the argument I heard was that upstate voted for Bernie because they are more white. Somehow, I just think such arguments are B.S.

     
  24. Shasta

    April 27, 2016 at 1:07 am

    Hi Richard. Thanks for your work. I’ve read some of your posts regarding the current primary election, and I am interested in finding out what you hope to gain from it. I read through the comments, and noticed that a few people here asked for a summary describing your work in less technical terms. I am curious as to why you are so opposed to providing this? It makes sense, of course, if you are doing this research solely for your own enjoyment and do not hope to affect change, but if you do want change I am having a hard time understanding your resistance.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      April 27, 2016 at 11:27 am

      Anyone interested in my analysis can go to my blog and read my bookk.
      I get a lot of queries. I have answered as many as possible.
      Some questions are from those who want to waste my time.

       
      • Shasta

        April 27, 2016 at 12:03 pm

        I see. I’m curious, have you read this description from the anonymous website that describes a possible strategy by the hc campaign? Not sure if it affects your numbers, or if it is relevant to a sole focused on exit polls. The article states that 70% of the voters were by early ballot. I’m not sure if they mean that at the end of the day 70% of the final count ended up being early-voters because there was so much voter suppression on election day and few of those in-person voters were counted because they gave up after hours of waitin. That might give some clue as to why the figures changed on the exit polls. If they tally in the early-votes to make it match the final count it could account for the huge shift. Either way, forcing a match like that and labeling it that way is inappropriate and misleading.

        http://www.anonews.co/hillary-clintons-election-fraud-exposed/

        Also, I bet you’d get a lot fewer questions if there was a summary that was easier to understand! 😉

         
  25. Ron Kovin

    April 28, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    Thanks for the research and helpful information on red flags for a possible election fraud.

    This is all very compelling, and it rings true, but being who I am – I want more.

    Do you know of other mathmaticians or statisticians who come to the same conclusions or rather independently verify your results. You might very well be right, but in this case there needs to be strength in numbers.

    Please list other sources. You can’t be the only one or I fear there won’t be enough momentum. Thanks.

     
  26. Patric Steele

    April 29, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    Richard you are a champion for our democracy.I saw your interview on Sane Progressive. I understand what you explained. I live in California and wish to monitor exit polls (if they end up having them). In the interview you said you monitored some exit polls at 9pm when they were at 70% of votes reporting. Were the exit poll numbers on your chart on this blog(for the 22 states) taken at 70% votes reporting as well ? Where should I go or watch when these numbers are reported so I can catch them before they are adjusted ? (since you mentioned the companies hired by the mainstream media adjust them) Also,what is the maximum possible percentage of change between the point of 70% of votes reporting and 100% of votes reporting ? I will be sure to pass this along. Keep up the good fight! Much Thanks.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      April 29, 2016 at 10:51 pm

      I don’t have an answer for you.

       
      • Patric Steele

        April 30, 2016 at 12:01 pm

        Ok. Good news. An exit poll chart similar to yours was briefly shown and discussed on the Redacted Tonight Show last night on the RT channel.It should be posted on the RT America website to watch by now under the “shows” category. The Word is starting to get out.

         

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,599 other followers

%d bloggers like this: