RSS

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.

My reply to an Amazon reviewer of “Trump Won the True Vote”

Richard Charnin
Jan.2, 2020

Amazon deleted my reply to Mike Landau,  a reviewer of “Trump Won the True Vote”. He questioned my credibility and motivation in my analysis of the 2016 election. https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Won-True-Vote-Independents/dp/1979900973/

Mike Landau wrote:

Mr. Charnin has written several interesting books previously building on the fact that over the last 30 years, since widespread adoption of proprietary voting machines operated by companies controlled by Republican activists, exit polls have fairly consistently differed from counted votes with exit polls roughly 4-7% more Democratic. He has come up with his own model of projection which he calls True Vote and which for the 10 years he’s been doing it has tracked closely to exit poll results, so he argues for consistent tabulation [and other] fraud in favor of republicans.

In this book, however, though again in the 2016 election exit polls were again much higher Dem than official counts, such that if accurate Clinton won handily, Mr. Charnin suddenly renounces the likely accuracy of exit polls he’s been touting for years, apparently because he’s become a Trump supporter in distaste at H CLinton’s unfair treatment of bernie sanders, and suddenly switches to a claim the vote count was several % skewed toward the democrats! In doing so he makes a number of false claims, including that millions of illegal aliens were allowed to vote for Dems, that the establishment favored Clinton [Rep. establishment solidly was behind Trump], and that George Soros now controls voting machine companies – this an apparent reference to a false right-wing conspiracy theory debunked on Snopes and elsewhere, that he now runs SmartMatic – in fact, voting machine companies are still controlled by activist Republicans. Charnin’s exit poll data is still of interest, but his descent into right-wing conspiracy and abandonment of his previous belief in exit polls, show a sad eagerness to adjust his results to his preferences, which must call into some question all of his earlier works – which are still recommended, though with this caveat.

My response to Mike Landau:

Landau is wrong about:
1) Snopes being impartial,
2) Soros not having an influence in the voting machines in 16 states,
3) illegal voters not coming out in millions for Clinton,
4) My “descent into a RW conspiracy”? That is  the TELL of an agent of deceit,
5) The establishment favored Trump? That is delusional.

My analysis shows that in 2016, the exit pollsters (who are paid by the MSM)  rigged the polls for Clinton. The MSM will do ANYTHING to destroy Trump  Landau has a closed mind; he doesn’t have a clue about election modeling.

2016 Election Model

My posts and four election fraud books are all based on a thorough, fair analysis. In 2016, HRC stole the primaries from Bernie Sanders. I wrote “77 Billion to One” largely based on deviations of unadjusted state and national exit polls from the recorded vote and Cumulative Vote Share Analysis. Even DNC lawyers admitted HRC fraud. I realized that the DNC/establishment could not let Clinton lose the unadjusted exit polls in the presidential election.

I PREDICTED THE MSM WOULD INFLATE THE UNADJUSTED EXIT POLLS FOR CLINTON AND THEN ADJUST THEM TO MATCH A  FRAUDULENT RECORDED VOTE COUNT (THAT IS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE). AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MY TRUE VOTE ANALYSIS SHOWED THEY DID.

Just because the National Exit Pool of six media giants provided accurate exit polls in prior elections UP TO AND INCLUDING THE 2016 PRIMARY does not mean they were not biased in the 2016 presidential. The establishment (MSM) wanted HRC to win come hell or high water. We are by now quite familiar with the Deep State (Mainstream Media) conspiracy to keep Trump from winning the election and supporting a bogus impeachment to try and defeat him in 2020. THEREFORE IT IS LOGICAL THAT THE MSM WOULD RIG PRE-ELECTION AND EXIT POLLS IN FAVOR OF CLINTON. THAT IS JUST COMMON SENSE.

NOW WILL YOU USE CRITICAL THINKING AND TURN OFF RACHEL MADDOW? THE MSM WILL GO TO ANY EXTREME TO DESTROY TRUMP AS THEY HAVE VOWED TO DO THE DAY TRUMP WAS INAUGURATED. It is unfortunate that otherwise intelligent individuals like yourself won’t admit to these obvious facts.

MR. LANDAU: DON’T EVER ACCUSE ME OF ADJUSTING MY ANALYSIS TO PERSONAL PREFERENCES. I HAVE THREE DEGREES IN APPLIED MATHEMATICS AND HAVE WORKED IN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY AND WALL STREET INVESTMENT BANKING DEVELOPING MATH-BASED ANALYTICAL PROGRAMMING MODELS. YOUR COMMENTS ON MY MOTIVATIONS ARE UNCALLED FOR. IT IS INDEED UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU TOW THE MSM LINE. TRUTH IS ALL. CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH?

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 2, 2020 in Uncategorized

 

Rasmussen polls and Impeachment

Richard Charnin
Dec. 13, 2019

On Dec. 12, Rasmussen had Trump approval at 51% vs. 48% disapproval, up from 44% approval on Nov. 25 (1500 likely voters). Is this an indication that the impeachment hearings are backfiring on the Dems? Politico/Morning Consulting had 39% approval vs. 58% disapproval (1994 registered voters), a -19% spread! One of these polls is way off. Let’s see how the polls react over the next few weeks.

Assuming Gallup survey Party-ID (39% Ind, 31% Dem, 30% Repub), 95% Repub Trump approval and 5% Dem Trump approval, 54% Independent Trump approval is required to match Rasmussen’s 51% Trump approval.

According to Politico Party-ID (13% Ind, 47% Dem, 40% Repub) just 11% of Independents approve. Which is most plausible?

Politico Trump Approval
Politco Approve Disapprove

Rep 40.3% 83.0% 16.0%
Dem 46.5% 9.0% 88.0%
Ind 13.2% 10.6% 80.3%
Poll 100% 39.0% 58.0%

Rasmussen Trump Approval
Gallup Approve Disapprove

Rep 30.0% 95.0% 5.0%
Dem 31.0% 5.0% 95.0%
Ind 39.0% 53.7% 43.7%
Poll 100% 51.0% 48.0%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yh0YkXBVctdJwt0_XHrpCC6f7K30oEz0Vr13MiU5qT4/edit#gid=528588856

A viewer commented: “It’s a Rasmussen poll, Richard. They always skew right because they only poll landline users and the average age of landline users is 49. Their methodology is garbage”.

I replied:
The MSM is biased. They inflate Dem Party- ID and vote shares. Therefore, it is clear that Rasmussen polls are closer to the truth than the MSM. The question is how close. My analysis of the 2016 primary and presidential election and the 2018 midterms shows that Dem votes were inflated. It is undisputed: the MSM is in the tank for the DNC. 

Rasmussen Methodology 
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology

“Data for Rasmussen Reports survey research is collected using an automated polling methodology.

Generally speaking, the automated survey process is identical to that of traditional, operator-assisted research firms such as Gallup, Harris, and Roper. However, automated polling systems use a single, digitally-recorded, voice to conduct the interview while traditional firms rely on phone banks, boiler rooms, and operator-assisted technology.

For tracking surveys such as the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, the automated technology ensures that every respondent hears exactly the same question, from the exact same voice, asked with the exact same inflection every single time.

All Rasmussen Reports’ survey questions are digitally recorded and fed to a calling program that determines question order, branching options, and other factors. Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that ensures appropriate geographic representation. Typically, calls are placed from 5 pm to 9 pm local time during the week. Saturday calls are made from 11 am to 6 pm local time and Sunday calls from 1 pm to 9 pm local time.

******To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.*****************

After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a ****WEIGHTING**** program to ensure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents.

For surveys of all adults, the population targets are determined by census bureau data.

For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area”. 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 12, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

The Reuters/Ipsos impeachment polling scam: more confirmation of MSM duplicity

Richard Charnin
Nov. 29, 2019

The latest poll, conducted on Monday and Tuesday, found that 47% of adults in the United States felt Trump “should be impeached,” while 40% said he should not.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/reuters-peddles-democrat-heavy-poll-claiming-impeachment-support-growing

BUT THE REUTERS NUMBERS ARE MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! How can -14.1% of Indies approve and -6.8% oppose impeachment?

The problem? Reuters sampled a disproportionate number of Democrats. Buried at the bottom of their report, they disclose:

“The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online, in English, throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 1,118 adults, including 528 Democrats (51%), 394 Republicans (38%) and 111 (11%) Independents. It has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 3 percentage points”.

Reuters…….. Approve Oppose (Implausible Party ID)
Rep 38%……. 20.0% 80.0%
Dem 51%…… 80.0% 20.0%
Ind 11%……. -14.1% -6.8% impossible negatives!
Poll………….. 47.0% 40.0% Bogus

Approval calculation: .47=.38*.20+.51*.80 +.11*(-.141)

Let’s adjust to plausible realistic Gallup voter affiliation weights and estimate the true percent of Independents who oppose impeachment.

Gallup………Approve Oppose (Plausible Party ID)
Rep 30% …… 20.0% 80.0%
Dem 31%…… 80.0% 20.0%
Ind 39%……… 23.6% 50.8%
Adjusted…… 40.0% 50.0% True

From Zerohedge: “After several major polls revealed a sharp decline in support for impeaching President Trump in the wake of unconvincing public testimony by aggrieved bureaucrats (and at least one House Democrat publicly opposing the move), Reuters/Ipsos now claims support for impeachment has increased.

“Reuters sampled more Democrats than Republicans and independents combined to arrive at their conclusion. They also reveal that ” about eight in 10 Democrats were supportive of impeaching Trump, and eight in 10 Republicans opposed”

The result, combined with Reuters/Ipsos polling over the past several weeks, showed that the number of Americans who want to impeach the president increasingly outnumbers those who do not. -Reuters

In the 2016 US election, Reuters/Ipsos was oversampling Democrats. Hillary Clinton had a giant lead over Donald Trump using a poll that sampled 44% Democrats and 33% Republicans.

I  analyzed the bogus CNN poll on Nov. 26:

CNN has 50% for impeachment, 43% against? That is just more BS propaganda. Who believes it? If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. MSM polls are always over-weighted for the Dems.

The Gallup monthly voter affiliation survey is an accurate National tracking poll. Trump won the TRUE popular vote in 2016 and will win a landslide in 2020!

Bogus CNN poll: 50% approve, 43% oppose
CNN Pct…. Approve Oppose
Rep 25%……. 9.0% 84.0% Implausible
Dem 31%….. 85.0% 12.0%
Ind 44%……..48.6% 41.5%
Poll………….50.0% 43.0% Implausible

Adjusted: 44% approve, 55% oppose
Gallup Pct.. Approve Oppose
Rep 30%………..9.0% 90.0%  Plausible
Dem 31%……. 85.0% 12.0%
Ind 39%..,…… 38.0% 62.0%
Adjusted…… 44.0% 55.0% Plausible

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/2016-national-exit-poll-race-vote-shares-and-corresponding-census-weights-indicates-that-trump-won-the-popular-vote/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/trump-cnn-impeachment-poll/index.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 29, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

 2016 National Exit Poll Race vote shares and corresponding Census weights indicate that Trump won the Popular vote

Richard Charnin
Nov.16, 2019

 2016 National Exit Poll vote shares and corresponding Census weights indicate that Trump won the Popular vote.

It is standard operating procedure: In every exit poll, all demographic crosstabs are adjusted to match the recorded vote.  But what if the exit poll weightings and/or vote shares are forced to match a bogus recorded vote? That means the polls are also bogus.

The NEP Race crosstab indicates that 71% of the electorate were white voters. Clinton won the recorded vote by 2.83 million (48.2-46.1%).

Census vote data indicate that white voters comprised 73.46% of the electorate. Using  Census weights and NEP vote shares, Trump is the winner  by 852,000 votes (47.5-46.8%).

Clinton won the 28 exit poll states by 49.2-45.2%.  But according to the exit polls, 68.9% of voters were white compared to 72.8% in the Census. The 3.9% discrepancy favored Clinton since Trump won whites by at least 20%. The 28 states represented 110.9  (81%) of 136.2 million votes.

Trump won the 23 non-exit poll states (25.4 million votes) by 50.4-43.7%.  The Census showed that whites were 76.2% of the vote in the 23 states.

View the sensitivity analysis matrix of alternative Trump shares scenarios. For instance, if Trump had 59% of whites and 22% of non-whites, he wins by 5.58 million votes (49.2-45.1%).

NEP Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 71.0% 37% 57% 6%
Black 12.0% 89% 8% 3%
Latino 11.0% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 4.0% 65% 27% 8%
Other 2.0% 56% 36% 8% Margin
Total 100.00% 47.93% 46.31% 5.76% 1.62%
136,216 65,288 63,082 7,846 2,207
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833
NEP Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 71.0% 37.0% 57.0% 6.0%
Non-white 29.0% 74.0% 21.0% 5.0% Margin
Total 100.0% 47.73% 46.56% 5.71% 1.17%
136,216 65,016 63,422 7,778 1,594
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833
Census Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 73.46% 37.0% 57.0% 6.0%
Non-white 26.54% 74.0% 21.0% 5.0% Margin
100.00% 46.82% 47.45% 5.73% 0.63%
136,216 63,776 64,628 7,811 852
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833
Trump%
White 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0%
Non-white Trump
25.0% 48.51% 49.24% 49.98% 50.71% 51.45%
24.0% 48.24% 48.98% 49.71% 50.45% 51.18%
23.0% 47.98% 48.71% 49.45% 50.18% 50.91%
22.0% 47.71% 48.45% 49.18% 49.91% 50.65%
21.0% 47.45% 48.18% 48.91% 49.65% 50.38%
Trump%
White 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0%
Non-white Clinton
25.0% 45.76% 45.02% 44.29% 43.55% 42.82%
24.0% 46.02% 45.29% 44.55% 43.82% 43.09%
23.0% 46.29% 45.55% 44.82% 44.09% 43.35%
22.0% 46.55% 45.82% 45.09% 44.35% 43.62%
21.0% 46.82% 46.09% 45.35% 44.62% 43.88%
Trump%
White 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0%
Non-white
Margin
25.0% 3,745 5,746 7,747 9,748 11,750
24.0% 3,022 5,023 7,024 9,025 11,027
23.0% 2,299 4,300 6,301 8,302 10,304
22.0% 1,575 3,577 5,578 7,579 9,581
21.0% 852 2,854 4,855 6,856 8,858

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17h3tOueSvQWwYFLwOEg3tCoIFdoB7wnEscsMgSFeDAk/edit#gid=1447777586

Tables 4A and 4B:    https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-580.html

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 16, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

JFK witness groups: mortality probabilities

Richard Charnin
Nov.7, 2019

Probabilities of unnatural deaths and homicides are calculated based on the Poisson function for the following witness groups : Warren Commission (552),  HSCA (200), Dealey Plaza (692), Simkin JFK Index (656), London Sunday Times Actuary (418).

JFK witness groups unnatural and homicide death probabilities

In 1963-1978, 78 of 122 suspicious deaths were officially ruled unnatural among 1500 JFK-related witnesses: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides and 4 unknown. The probability of 78 unnatural deaths = 4.3E-60 = 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. The probability of 34 homicides = 1.3E-30 = 1 in a million trillion trillion.

There are an estimated one trillion trillion (E+24) stars in the universe.

Just 12 accidents and 3 suicides were expected based on mortality rates, therefore approximately 59 unnatural deaths were homicides (34 ruled+12 “accidents”+13 “suicides”).  Of the 44 “natural” deaths (heart attacks, sudden cancers, other), approximately 25-30 were homicides. Therefore, there were an estimated 85 homicides among the 122 suspicious deaths. The probability of 85 homicides among 1500 witnesses = 1.7E-106.

Sensitivity Analysis: Probability of  n homicides, N witnesses, T= 15 years, R=0.000084 mortality rate

Expected = N*T*R 1.89 3.78 6.30
Witnesses 1500 3000 5000
Homicides Probability
22 1.62E-16 1.03E-10 6.29E-07
34 ruled 1.28E-30 3.33E-21 9.36E-15
59 2.23E-65 1.94E-48 1.92E-36
85 estimated 1.69E-106 9.89E-82 5.73E-64

 

METHOD: POISSON PROBABILITY FUNCTION
LONDON SUNDAY TIMES ACTUARY: CALCULATION CONFIRMATION
1 in 100,000 trillion probability of 18 witness deaths by Feb. 1967
R unnatural rate 0.000209 weighted unnatural death rate
N witnesses 418 Warren Commission testified in person (source:CIA)
n deaths 18 13 unnatural; 5 natural
T years 3.26 3 years, 3 months (Nov ’63-Feb ’67)
E=R*N*T=0.000209 *418 * 3.26 E= 0.2848 expected unnatural deaths
P(13 unnatural deaths in 3.26 years) = 0.2848^13 * exp(-0.2848) / 13! = 9.80E-18
P(13) = Poisson (13, 0.2848, false)
P (13) = 1 in 102,081,079,385,890,000 = 1 in 102 thousand trillion
Calculation of R (weighted unnatural  death rate)
R = 0.000209 = (8*.000061+3*000658+2*000128)/13 (1964-66 average annual rate)
8 homicides 0.000061
3 accidents 0.000658
2 suicides 0.000128
Warren Commission Dealey Plaza HSCA Simkin Index
ALAN BELMONT Allen Sweatt “Lummie” Lewis Buddy Walthers
ALBERT BOGARD Bill Decker ALAN BELMONT C.D. Jackson
Allen Sweatt Billy Lovelady Carlos Prio Carlos Prio
Bill Decker Buddy Walthers Charles Nicoletti Charles Cabell
Billy Lovelady Charles Mentesana DAVID MORALES Charles Murret
BUDDY WALTHERS Charles Nicoletti DONALD KAYLOR Charles Nicoletti
Charles Murret Cliff Carter GEORGE DE MORENSCHILDT Clay Shaw
Cliff Carter Clint “Lummie” Lewis J.M. ENGLISH Cliff Carter
DE MORENSCHILDT David Morales JAMES CADIGAN Dave Yaras
DOMINGO BENAVIDES Earl Cabell James Weston David Ferrie
EARLE CABELL Frank Martin JOHN PAISLEY David Morales
Earlene Roberts Ira (Jack) Beers JOHNNY ROSELLI Desmond Fitzgerald
Edward Voebel J.A. Milteer LOUIS NICHOLS Earl Cabell
FRANK MARTIN J.D. Tippit MANUEL ARTIME Eladio Del Valle
HALE BOGGS Jack Ruby REGIS KENNEDY Frank Wisner
HAROLD RUSSELL James Chaney Robert Alan Surrey G DeMorenschildt
J. EDGAR HOOVER James Worrell Thomas Karamessines Guy Banister
JACK RUBY Johnny Roselli William Harvey J.Edgar Hoover
JAMES CADIGAN Ken O’Donnell William Pawley Jack Ruby
JAMES WORRELL Lee Bowers WILLIAM SULLIVAN Jimmy Hoffa
KAREN CARLIN Lee Harvey Oswald Johnny Roselli
Ken O’Donnell Mac Wallace Lucien Sarti
LEE BOWERS. Merriman Smith Lyndon Johnson
Lummie Lewis Roger Craig Mac Wallace
Paul Raigorodsky Roscoe White Manuel Artime
Philip Geraci Roy Kellerman Mary Sherman
ROGER CRAIG Thomas E. Davis Paul Helliwell
WARREN REYNOLDS William Whaley Richard Cain
WILLIAM WHALEY Roland Masferrer
Roscoe White
Sam Giancana
Thomas E. Davis
William Harvey
William Pawley
William Sullivan
Winston Scott
Dorothy Hunt
Grant Stockdale
J.D. Tippit
John Paisley
Lee Harvey Oswald
Mary Jo Kopechne
Mary Pinchot Meyer
Robert F. Kennedy
Sheffield Edwards
Thomas Karamessines
Bill Hunter
Dorothy Kilgallen
Hale Boggs
Jim Koethe
Merriman Smith
Alan Belmont
Bill Decker
Billy Lovelady
Earlene Roberts
Eddie Benavides
Florence Smith
Gary Underhill
James Truitt
Karyn Kupcinet
Ken O’Donnell
Lee Bowers
Lisa Howard
Nancy Carole Tyler
Roger Craig
Rose Cheramie
Roy Kellerman
Tom Howard
Warren Reynolds
William Pitzer

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 7, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

Tulsi Sounds Like Trump

Richard Charnin
Oct. 20, 2019

First, Tulsi Gabbard’s tweet:
“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. (sounds like Trump)
“Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly,” said Gabbard in three tweets on Friday afternoon. (sounds like Trump)

Now from her website: https://www.tulsi2020.com
“If you look at other countries in the world who have universal health care, every one of them has some form of a role for PRIVATE insurance (sounds like Trump)……”

“As president, I will lead this country to bring about a bold change in our foreign policy that bends the arc of history away from war and towards peace. That stops wasting our resources, and our lives on REGIME CHANGE wars, and redirects our focus and energy towards peace and prosperity for all people” (sounds like Trump).… “

Criminal justice reform is a bipartisan issue. We can bring down costs and improve outcomes by implementing alternatives to incarceration.” (sounds like Trump)… ”

“Too often, the LGBTQ community still faces discrimination in the workplace, in education, or when trying to find a home. It’s long overdue that we extend civil rights protections to the LGBTQ community and ensure equal treatment for all Americans under the law—regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability, or national origin.” (sounds like Trump)….”

“For a nation forged by immigrants, wrestling with the legacy of slavery and racial injustice, we continue to aspire to live up to the founding ideals of America — of freedom, equality, and justice for all. Hawaii stands as a shining example of how to heal our nation and stand united through the power of aloha. (sounds like Trump)…”

“A strong national defense and the protection of our civil liberties are equally important and compatible. We can strike the necessary balance between freedom and security by reforming our surveillance practices and directing the resources we have toward proven methods of eliminating threats to the safety and security of the American people. (sounds like Trump)…”

“Unfortunately, President Trump turned his back on the Constitution and launched retaliatory missile strikes against the Syrian government before any investigation had even begun, much less been completed. Rather than waiting for evidence, Trump acted on impulse and emotion, relying on social media posts and unverified sources originating from within territory held by al Qaeda. (I agree with Tulsi,Trump should have told the truth: Assad did not gas his own people- it was al Qaeda)…”

“We need comprehensive immigration reform to address our broken immigration laws and we need to have a serious conversation about the most effective and humane ways to compassionately secure our borders while building bridges and cooperative foreign policy with other countries. We need to ensure we have a clear, enforceable, accessible, and humane pathway to citizenship.(sounds like Trump)…”

“The time for action is now. We cannot allow partisan politics to get in the way of taking meaningful action in areas where both parties agree and that have the support of most Americans across this country.(sounds like Trump)…”

“This is the huge vulnerability that threatens our next election, that so far, unfortunately, has not been addressed. The fact that there are still many states in this country who don’t have paper ballots or any kind of auditable paper trail; to make sure that whether it’s another country, or an individual rogue actor, that comes in and tries to manipulate our votes, tries to change our votes to change the outcome of this election; our system is vulnerable to those hacks and attacks today. (sounds like Trump)…”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 20, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

Moody’s 2020 presidential election forecast: Trump is the clear favorite.

Richard Charnin
Oct. 19, 2019

This is an analysis of Moody’s 2020 forecast. It consists of three models and assumes 2-party votes: Pocketbook, Stock and Unemployment.

In each model there are three turnout assumptions (Maximum, Average and Minimum). Trump wins if there is average or minimum Democratic turnout. He loses if Democratic turnout is at a maximum level relative to Republicans and Independents.

Compare to the 2016 election. Clinton won the popular recorded vote by 2.86 million  (48.2-46.1%). The 2016 National Exit Poll (matched to the recorded vote) had Trump winning Independents by 46-42%. The True Vote Model  assumes that Trump had 54% of Independents.

Trump won the TVM by nearly 9 million votes (49.9-43.6%) with 356 EV.  He had 53.4% of the TVM 2-party vote  vs. 51.4% in Moody’s Average Turnout model.

Dem Turnout Max Average Min
Trump 2-party EV 2-party EV 2-party EV
Wtd Average 47.8% 259 51.4% 332 54.9% 387
AL 63.0% 9 65.9% 9 67.8% 9
AK 55.6% 3 60.4% 3 64.1% 3
AZ 53.6% 11 56.0% 11 59.7% 11
AR 56.8% 6 62.0% 6 64.2% 6
CA 36.1% 39.9% 44.1%
CO 45.3% 49.3% 54.8% 9
CT 41.9% 45.8% 51.2% 7
DE 41.8% 45.9% 50.8% 3
DC 6.0% 11.8% 18.9%
FL 50.5% 29 53.4% 29 58.3% 29
GA 52.3% 16 55.2% 16 58.9% 16
HI 35.3% 38.9% 42.3%
ID 61.1% 4 68.0% 4 71.3% 4
IL 40.2% 43.6% 47.1%
IN 56.8% 11 60.0% 11 61.7% 11
IA 51.5% 6 54.5% 6 57.1% 6
KS 55.0% 6 61.6% 6 64.4% 6
KY 61.3% 8 64.9% 8 66.6% 8
LA 57.5% 8 61.4% 8 63.9% 8
ME 42.9% 49.1% 55.5% 4
MD 36.0% 40.6% 45.1%
MA 36.0% 39.1% 44.3%
MI 47.3% 51.0% 16 55.5% 16
MN 45.7% 50.1% 10 53.0% 10
MS 59.8% 6 61.3% 6 63.0% 6
MO 53.3% 10 58.8% 10 62.1% 10
MT 58.9% 3 61.9% 3 64.2% 3
NE 59.1% 5 64.1% 5 67.6% 5
NV 44.4% 49.3% 54.6% 6
NH 46.9% 51.2% 4 58.8% 4
NJ 43.9% 46.8% 51.1% 14
NM 43.7% 47.0% 50.4% 5
NY 39.3% 41.9% 45.7%
NC 50.4% 15 54.0% 15 57.6% 15
ND 61.5% 3 66.7% 3 68.6% 3
OH 51.8% 18 55.2% 18 58.3% 18
OK 62.4% 7 68.9% 7 71.4% 7
OR 41.1% 45.7% 50.4% 7
PA 49.3% 51.8% 20 54.3% 20
RI 40.3% 44.0% 48.2%
SC 56.9% 9 59.3% 9 62.6% 9
SD 58.1% 3 63.7% 3 66.4% 3
TN 60.4% 11 63.8% 11 65.9% 11
TX 56.4% 38 59.0% 38 59.0% 38
UT 57.2% 6 64.3% 6 67.5% 6
VT 32.7% 37.2% 43.6%
VA 46.5% 50.7% 13 54.8% 13
WA 40.6% 44.5% 48.7%
WV 63.9% 5 67.9% 5 72.0% 5
WI 47.8% 51.3% 10 54.9% 10
WY 65.7% 3 72.8% 3 75.8% 3

2016 True Vote Model

Gallup
NEP shares
Votes Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 32.0% 88.4% 9.8% 0.0% 1.8%
Rep 28.0% 6.0% 90.0% 4.0% 0.0%
Ind 40.0% 34.0% (adj) 54.0% (adj) 6.0% 4.0%
Shares 99.20% 43.6% 49.9% 3.5% 2.2%
Votes 135,535 59,526 68,227 4,809 2,973
Margin 8,700 182 EV 356 EV

https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2019/president-election-model.pdf

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yh0YkXBVctdJwt0_XHrpCC6f7K30oEz0Vr13MiU5qT4/edit#gid=1929995942

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 19, 2019 in Uncategorized