Author Archives: Richard Charnin

About Richard Charnin

In 1965, I graduated from Queens College (NY) with a BA in Mathematics. I later obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University and an MS in Operations Research from the Polytechnic Institute of NY. I started out as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer and then moved to Wall Street as a manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for several major investment banks. I consulted in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. In 2004 l began posting weekly "Election Model" projections based on state and national polls. As "TruthIsAll", I have been posting election analysis to determine the True Vote ever since.

Trump won the True vote; Clinton won the Fraudulent Recorded vote

Richard Charnin
June 24, 2017

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

Hillary Clinton’s 2.9 million recorded vote margin is a myth. The simple proof: ALL elections are fraudulent. THE RECORDED VOTE IS NEVER EQUAL TO THE TRUE VOTE. Mainstream media pre-election and exit polls were rigged for Clinton.  

She won the Recorded Vote 48.3-46.2% . Trump had 306 EV. The True Vote Model indicates that Trump won by 48-44% (5 million votes) with 351 EV.

1988-2012: Democrats won the True Vote and the unadjusted exit polls 52-42%. They won the recorded vote by 48-46%. They won the True Vote in every election. The exit polls and the True Vote Model indicated that the 1988,2000 and 2004 elections were stolen.

So what changed in 2016? The establishment was in the tank for Clinton. The pre-election and exit polls were biased in her favor. Trump won the primaries easily; Clinton had to cheat Bernie. Trump and Bernie drew big crowds, Clinton drew small crowds. Trump and Bernie won (non-scientific) online debate polls by large margins.

2016 Democratic primary: 11 of 26 unadjusted exit polls exceeded the MoE for Sanders. Odds against: 79 billion to one.

2016 Election: Clinton led 9 pre-election polls by 2.5% – exactly matching the recorded vote.
Pre-election polls were rigged for Clinton. Democratic Party ID was inflated.
True National Party ID was 40-I-32D-28R

Unadjusted exit polls were also rigged for Clinton. Large exit poll discrepancies favored Clinton in the Rust belt and Red states.  Exit polls matched the recorded vote in large states (i.e. CA). If the recorded vote was bogus, then the unadjusted exit polls must have also overstated Clinton shares. In NY the 5% discrepancy actually favored Trump.

True Vote Sensitivity Analysis – returning 2012 voters. Trump wins all 25 scenarios.

Ohio unadjusted exit poll indicated a implausible 47% tie .  Trump won Ohio by 51.7-43.6%. But the unadjusted poll indicates that he won by just 47.1-47.0%. To match the unadjusted poll, Clinton needed to win Independents by 50-35%, an implausible margin.  However, the final Ohio exit poll (which is always matched to the recorded vote) indicated that Trump won Independents by 51-38%.

Humboldt County, CA is only US county with an Open Source foolproof vote count/audit. Bernie had his highest CA share in Humboldt (71%). Jill Stein had her highest share there(6%) compared to 1% elsewhere.

Voter turnout: millions of Sanders voters a) did not turnout, b) voted for Stein, c) voted for Trump,

Trump and Bernie each won Independents by 10%. Trump had a higher percentage of Republicans than Clinton had of Democrats.

“Crosscheck”: It is estimated that one million votes were suppressed, costing Hillary.

Illegal voters: Estimated at 1-5 million – helping Clinton. Obama encouraged illegals to vote.

Late Deciders: The National Exit Poll (which is ALWAYS adjusted to match the recorded vote) indicates that 26% of voters decided who to vote for after Oct. 1. Of these late deciders, 48% said they voted for Trump and 40% for Clinton. Of those who decided before Oct. 1, Clinton led by 51-45% – a 14% flip in vote margin. Late deciders voted heavily for Trump. He had the momentum.

Fraction Magic: votes were flipped to Clinton on Central tabulators (Bev Harris)

Hillary supporter George Soros had an interest in voting machines in 16 states.

Recounts in MI and WI showed that Trump did better than reported.
Wayne County, MI had more votes than registered voters.

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 24, 2017 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , ,

Seth Rich/JFK Mortality Probability Calculator

Richard Charnin
May 20, 2017 (updated 6/12/17)

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

It’s not just about Seth Rich. Applied Mathematics indicates a virtual 100% probability of a cover-up.

There were n=6 suspicious deaths in T=5 weeks (0.10 years). Mortality rate R=0.0002. Assuming a random group of N individuals, the probability that it was just a coincidence is
N Probability
500  1 in 900 trillion
1000 1 in 14 trillion
3000 1 in 20 billion
30000 1 in 32000

There were 7 suspicious deaths (assumed to be homicides) in 3 months. The probability is virtually ZERO it is a coincidence given so many suspicious deaths in such a short period of time. How many DNC voter data admins were there? How many DNC process servers? How many HRC biographers? How many Assange lawyers? How many Wikileaks founders? How many UN officials preparing to testify? How many DNC officials? How many investigative reporters on the Clintons? Are any of these deaths being investigated? Any suspects?

4/18: John Jones, lawyer who defended Assange, run over by train.
6/22: John Ashe, UN official, barbell fell on neck day before he was going to testify on DNC and Clinton.
6/23: Mike Flynn,48, died day he reported on Clinton Foundation (COD unknown).
7/10: Seth Rich, DNC staffer, shot twice in back. Assange offered $20K reward.
7/25: Joe Montano,47, DNC, heart attack, died day before convention.
8/01: Victor Thorn, author of books exposing Clintons, gunshot wound.
8/02: Shawn Lucas, DNC process server, lethal combination of drugs.

In addition, consider these 2 suspicious deaths (n=9)
Michael Ratner (Wikileaks NY lawyer) died in May 2016 from cancer.
Gavin McFayden (Wikileaks founder) died in Oct 2016 from cancer.

What is the probability that in a random group of N individuals, n would die unnaturally in T years given group mortality rate R? Three (R, n, T) of the 4 parameters are known constants. The only unknown is N, the number of individuals in the study.

There were 7 suspicious deaths in 3 months:
n = 7
R = 0.0002 (DC homicide rate; 135 homicides/681170 pop.)
T = 3 months (0.25 Year).
N = relevant DNC/Wikileaks population.
E = N*R*T =N*0.0002*0.25 (expected number of homicides).

The  Poisson distribution function calculates the probability of rare events. The probability of n homicides when E are expected is P = poisson (n,E,false).

Assume N = 1,000, the probability n=
3 is P= 1 in 52 thousand
4 is P= 1 in 4.2 million
5 is P= 1 in 422 million
6 is P= 1 in 51 billion
7 is P= 1 in 7.2 trillion

Assume: n=7, T= 0.25 (3 months), R=0.0002 and
N= 500, P = 1 in 902.1 trillion
N= 1,000, P = 1 in 7.2 trillion
N= 3,000, P = 1 in 3.6 billion
N= 10,000, P = 1 in 1.1 million

Since N is unknown, let’s view a SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS table over a range of N for n=5,6,7,8,9:

Probability of n homicides in a random group of
n 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
5 0.02% 0.31% 1.41% 3.61%
6 0.00% 0.05% 0.35% 1.20%
7 0.00% 0.01% 0.08% 0.34%
8 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.09%
9 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%

The analysis assumes the 7 deaths were all homicides. If they were a combination of 3 homicides, 2 accidents, 1 suicide and 1 heart attack, we use a weighted mortality rate. This is conservative as the “accidents” and “suicides” were likely homicides. The heart attack was also highly suspicious.

………………..National Weighted for T=.25 (3 months)
COD………. n Rate……… Rate
Accident.. 2 0.00038 0.00076
Suicide…. 1 0.00012 0.00012
Homicide. 3 0.00005 0.00015
Natural?.. 1 0.00173 0.00173 heart attack/cancer
Total…….7 0.00228 0.00039

For n=7, N= 1000, R = 0.00039, T = 0.25 (3 months)
Probability: P = 1 in 60 billion.

For n=5 homicides, N=1000, T= 0.27 (14 weeks), R = 0.00005
P = 1 in 275 billion

For n =7 (5 homicides, 2 heart attacks), N=1000, T= 0.25, R = 0.00052
P = 1 in 8 billion.

For n=9 (5 homicides, 2 heart attacks and 2 cancers):
R=0.0008, N=1000, T=0.5 (6 months)
P = 1 in 2.5 billion.

You can run the spreadsheet calculator for any combination of N, n, R and T.

Probability of 0-7 homicides in a random group of 40,000 over 3 months

No automatic alt text available.

No automatic alt text available.


In 1964-78, there were an estimated 1500 JFK-related material witnesses, of whom 122 died suspiciously. Seventy-eight(78) of the 122 were officially ruled unnatural. Of the 78, 34 were homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides and 4 unknown. The probability of 78 unnatural deaths: 2.7E-31 (1 in a million trillion trillion).

Just 12 accidents and 3 suicides were expected statistically, therefore approximately 60 of the 78 unnatural deaths were likely homicides.

Of the remaining 44 “natural” deaths (heart attacks, sudden cancers, other), approximately 25-30 were homicides based on the total number of expected deaths. Therefore, there were 85-90 homicides among the 122 suspicious deaths. For 10,000 witnesses, Probability: 5.5E-47


Simkin JFK Index of 656 key individuals: 44 homicides, Probability = 4.7 E-60


Posted by on May 20, 2017 in 2016 election, JFK, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Election Justice USA: Evidence of Massive Election Fraud in the Primaries

Richard Charnin
April 29, 2017

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

An excellent article from “Project Censored 2017”.

On July 25th, 2016, Election Justice USA (EJUSA) released a hundred-page report compiling evidence of massive election fraud during the 2016 Democratic primaries. Election Justice USA is a non-partisan organization that consists of attorneys, technologists, journalists, statisticians, and activists.

Essentially, EJUSA concludes that Bernie Sanders may have lost an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates due to specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Their conclusions? The combination of voter suppression, registration tampering, voter purging, and the manipulation of computerized voting machines, likely cost Bernie Sanders the election.
Additionally, Election Justice USA found that the computer counts differed widely from the exit poll projections, but only for the Democratic Party primaries. According to election analyst Richard Charnin, Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.

Charnin reported that the probability of this occurring is 1 in 77 billion, which raises the strong possibility of election fraud. Yet, almost no discrepancies were found in the data for the Republican Party primaries. This is particularly remarkable, because the exit polls were conducted on the same day, in the same precincts, with the same interviewers, and used the same methodologies for both the parties. So, this evidence suggests that the computer counts were only accurate for the Republican Party, while the computer counts for the Democratic Party primaries remain largely unverified.



1 Comment

Posted by on April 29, 2017 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , ,

University of Virginia Study: 20% of Trump Voters were former Obama Voters

Richard Charnin
April 29, 2017

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

Larry Sabato is the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Sabato said: “This is the largest study of just Trump voters… The first thing that is perfectly clear is that Trump has not lost almost none of his backers, which includes the soft Trump voters. He’s still got 92-93% of them supporting him. It’s also true he hasn’t gained many people from the other side. We live in a very polarized era… What I found fascinating, nobody else has identified this, 20% of Trump voters actually voted for Obama either in 2008 or in 2012 or in both years. In other words a fifth of his vote came from Obama voters”.

I calculated Trump’s vote share based on the above: If 20% of Trump voters were former Obama voters, then the vote share calculation indicates that Trump won by an estimated 48.3-42.9% (7 million votes), confirming the True Vote Model: Trump by 48.5-44.3% (351-187 EV).

2012….. Pct……Trump Clinton Other……..Trump share
Obama…. 51.1%…. 19%….75%….. 6%……….9.7% 20% <<<<
Romney… 47.2%…. 80%…..8%…..12%……..37.8% 78%
Other…….. 1.7%….. 48%….46%……6%……….0.8% 2%

Total….. 100%…..48.3%. 42.9%…8.8%…..48.3% 100%


Includes estimated 2012 voter turnout in 2016 and new voters.
Assumption: 18.3% of Trump voters were returning Obama voters
True Vote share: Clinton 42.8%, Trump 47.8%, Other 9.4%
True Vote: Clinton 58.3 million, Trump 65.1, Other 12.8
Recorded share: Clinton 48.3%, Trump 46.2%, Other 5.5%
Recorded Vote: Clinton 65.7 million, Trump 62.9, Other 7.6
(9.7 million flip in margin (7.1%) from the Recorded to True vote)
Returning and new voters
Clinton Trump Other Trump%
Obama 44.6 11.9 3.0 18.3%
Romney 4.6 44.1 8.6 67.8%
Other 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.4%
DNV (new) 8.1 8.1 1.0 12.5%
Total 58.3 65.1 12.8 100.0%
2012 Mix Clinton Trump Other Turnout
Obama 43.66% 75% 20% 5% 94%
Romney 42.09% 8% 77% 15% 98%
Other 1.54% 45% 45% 10% 95%
DNV (new) 12.70% 47% 47% 6%
True Share 100% 42.8% 47.8% 9.4%
 True Vote 136.2 58.3 65.1 12.8
Recorded 136.2 65.7 62.9 7.6
Change -7.4 2.2 5.2
Trump% Obama 18% 19% 20% 21% 22%
Trump% Romney Trump share
79% 47.8% 48.2% 48.7% 49.1% 49.5%
78% 47.4% 47.8% 48.2% 48.7% 49.1%
77% 46.9% 47.4% 47.8% 48.2% 48.7%
76% 46.5% 47.0% 47.4% 47.8% 48.3%
75% 46.1% 46.5% 47.0% 47.4% 47.8%
Clinton share
79% 42.8% 42.4% 41.9% 41.5% 41.1%
78% 43.2% 42.8% 42.4% 41.9% 41.5%
77% 43.7% 43.2% 42.8% 42.3% 41.9%
76% 44.1% 43.6% 43.2% 42.8% 42.3%
75% 44.5% 44.1% 43.6% 43.2% 42.7%
Trump % margin
79% 5.0% 5.8% 6.7% 7.6% 8.5%
78% 4.1% 5.0% 5.9% 6.7% 7.6%
77% 3.3% 4.2% 5.0% 5.9% 6.8%
76% 2.4% 3.3% 4.2% 5.1% 5.9%
75% 1.6% 2.5% 3.3% 4.2% 5.1%
Trump vote margin
79% 6.77 7.96 9.15 10.33 11.52
78% 5.62 6.81 8.00 9.19 10.38
77% 4.47 5.66 6.85 8.04 9.23
76% 3.33 4.52 5.71 6.89 8.08
75% 2.18 3.37 4.56 5.75 6.94

Leave a comment

Posted by on April 29, 2017 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , , ,


The MSM just interviewed the authors of  Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign on the reasons for Clinton’s loss.  I commented to Chris Mathews and Brian Williams of MSNBC as well as FOX and CBS on how MSM pollsters rigged the pre-election polls for Clinton.

FYI: Your guests may not have looked at my 2016 Election model. It was based adjustments to final pre-election polls which were biased for Clinton. The Democratic Party-ID share was overstated at the expense of Independents who went solidly for Trump. In addition, there is strong evidence that votes were stolen from Jill Stein – by Clinton.

The 2016 Model projected Trump’s 306 RECORDED EV. But he actually had approximately 351 TRUE EV after adjusting for late undecided voters.

Recorded Vote: Clinton 48.3-46.2%, Trump 306-232 EV
Recorded Vote Forecast: Trump 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV
True Vote Model: Trump 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV

Note: I exactly forecast the RECORDED EV in the last three elections: 365, 332, 306. In each case the winner did better in the True Vote than the Recorded vote.

Here is the proof:




Leave a comment

Posted by on April 24, 2017 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Syrian Sarin Gas False Flag: Selected Readings

Richard Charnin
April 16, 2017

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

    Theodore A. Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT.  His main expertise is ballistic missiles. He has a substantial background in air dispersal, including how toxic plumes move in the air. Postol has taught courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological threats – at MIT.

  • Chuck Baldwin: Donald Trump – Just Another Neocon Warmonger
    “Talk is cheap” is a phrase that politicians teach us constantly. This time the teacher is Donald Trump. Donald Trump campaigned as an outsider, someone that was not owned by the establishment, and someone who would fight the globalists and drain “the swamp.” But “talk is cheap.”

In 2013, AFTER Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was accused of using sarin gas against his own countrymen, Trump tweeted, “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.” (August 29) And, “Obama’s war in Syria has the potential to widen into a worldwide conflict.” (September 5) And, “Forget Syria and make America great again.” (September 11) And, again, “We should . . . stay out of Syria and other countries that hate us, rebuild our own country and make it strong and great again–USA!” (September 12)

    •  Robert Parry: Even as The New York Times leads the charge against the Syrian government for this week’s alleged chemical attack, it is quietly retreating on its earlier certainty about the 2013 Syria-sarin case.

    • Project Censored: “Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East?”

New evidence shows that the Syrian government was not responsible for the August 21, 2013 sarin gas attack in Ghouta on its own people. The Syrian government was not responsible for the nerve agent attack that left hundreds of Syrians dead, contrary to what the Obama administration claimed, Seymour Hersh and others have reported. US intelligence deliberately manipulated its findings to justify a subsequent strike against Assad, whose regime is being blamed for “gassing thousands to death”.

      • Seymour Hersh:  Hillary Clinton Approved Delivering Libya’s Sarin Gas to Syrian Rebels     

The great investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in two previous articles in the London Review of Books («Whose Sarin?» and «The Red Line and the Rat Line») has reported that the Obama Administration falsely blamed the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for the sarin gas attack that Obama was trying to use as an excuse to invade Syria; and Hersh pointed to a report from British intelligence saying that the sarin that was used didn’t come from Assad’s stockpiles. Hersh also said that a secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad. «By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria».

    • Ron Paul: “Zero Chance” Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag

Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels.  Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people”, implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.

    • Robert Parry: The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry.

“With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.

Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war with nuclear-armed Russia.”

    • Dr. Eowyn: Three reasons why the latest Syrian chemical attack attributed to Assad is a false flag Posted on by | 32 Comments

In the early morning hours of April 7, 2017, the Trump administration fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a U.S. destroyer in the Mediterranean Sea, at Shayrat Air Base in Syria which is alleged to be the location from where the Assad government, on April 4, had launched a chemical attack of sarin nerve gas which killed many civilians, including women and children, in the rebel-held town of Khan Shaykhun in Idlib province.

    • RT Documentary: BBC, CNN News Caught Staging FAKE News Chemical Attacks In Syria

A leaked CNN video and a Truth Seeker RT documentary details the multiple times the corporate media has staged fake news to get the West into war.

    • Top Former U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials: Trump Should Rethink Syrian Escalation

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)*
SUBJECT: Syria: Was It Really “A Chemical Weapons Attack”?

1 Comment

Posted by on April 9, 2017 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2016 Voter Turnout and Vote share Sensitivity Analysis: Trump won the Popular Vote

Richard Charnin
Mar. 15, 2017

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

Trump wins all 25 scenarios over various combinations of voter turnout

Party ID (registration) 38I-31D-27R
(Gallup voter affiliation survey average Nov.1-13,  2016)

1. Base Case Voter Turnout: Dem 65%, Rep 70%, Ind 70%
Trump 48.3-45.2% (4.2 million vote margin)

2. Worst Case Turnout: Dem 67%, Rep 68%, Ind 70%
Trump 47.6-45.9% (2.3 million vote margin)

3. Best Case Turnout: Dem 63%, Rep 72%, Ind 70%
Trump 49.1-44.5% (6.2 million vote margin)

Reg Voter  Gallup Base Case
Turnout Voter Affil Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
70% Ind 38% 40% 50% 5% 5%
65% Dem 31% 88% 8% 1% 3%
70% Rep 27% 7% 89% 3% 1%
Vote share 100.0% 45.2% 48.3% 3.2% 3.2%
Votes 136.2 61.6 65.8 4.4 4.4
Trump %
Dem   Rep Turnout      
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9% 49.1%
64% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9%
65% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7%
66% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5%
67% 47.6% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3%
Trump Vote
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 65.9 66.1 66.3 66.6 66.8
64% 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3 66.6
65% 65.4 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3
66% 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8 66.1
67% 64.9 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8
Clinton %
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 45.2% 45.0% 44.9% 44.7% 44.5%
64% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9% 44.7%
65% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9%
66% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1%
67% 45.9% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2%
Trump %  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2% 4.5%
64% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2%
65% 2.4% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8%
66% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1% 3.4%
67% 1.7% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1%
Trump  Vote  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 4.3 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2
64% 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7
65% 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
66% 2.8 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7
67% 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 15, 2017 in 2016 election


Tags: , , , ,

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis