Is the corporate media reporting Jill Stein’s true polling numbers?

Richard Charnin
Sept. 18, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll

LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Is the corporate media reporting Jill Stein’s true polling numbers? It’s obvious that the corporate media does not want her in the debates. It would radically change the dynamic of the race.

Stein has just 3% in the polls and needed 15% to qualify for the debates. If Jill got in the debates, her visibility would skyrocket, her poll shares would increase and Hillary Clinton’s shares would decline..

How many Independent and Democratic voters even know Jill Stein?

According to the polls, 12% of respondents are Independents.But the  Gallup Party Affiliation Survey indicates the electorate consists of 42% Independents, 29% Democrats and 29% Republicans.

To believe the Media polls, you must believe that Jill Stein has just 5% of Independents and Democrats. But Bernie had 65-70% of Independents in the primaries- and Jill Stein should be doing nearly as well against Clinton in the polls.

The latest  polls show Trump tied with Clinton and surpassing her in battleground states. The Election Model indicates that he may be leading by 6%. Johnson is taking votes from Trump.  If  Stein’s share increased by 10%,  Clinton’s would decline accordingly – and  Trump would be on his way to a landslide.

Current Media Polls

……………. Pct.. Stein..Clinton.Trump..Johnson

Ind………..12%……5%….40%….40%……..5%

Dem………44%……5%….85%…..5%………5%

Rep……….44%…….0%…..5%….85%…….10%

Total……..100%….2.8%  44.4% 44.4%…. 8.4%

 

Adjusted Media Poll Shares

……………. Pct.. Stein..Clinton.Trump..Johnson

Ind………..12%……30%….15%….40%……..15%

Dem………44%……15%….70%…..5%……..10%

Rep……….44%…….0%…..5%….85%……..10%

Total……..100%….10.2%  34.8% 44.4%…. 10.6%

 

Election Model – Party-ID affiliation from Gallup survey and estimated poll shares.

…………… Pct.. Stein..Clinton.Trump..Johnson

Ind………..42%…35%…20%….25%……20%

Dem ……..29%…20%…70%……5%……..5%

Rep……….29%….2%…..2%…..80% ……16%

Total……..100%..21.1%.29.3% 35.2%….14.4%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Note: The ad below is automatic and not under my control.

 

 

Aug.24: Jill Stein at 3% and Independents just 12% of the electorate?

Richard Charnin
Aug. 26, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll

LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

In the Aug. 24 Ipsos/Reuters poll  Clinton had 39%; Trump 36%; Johnson 7%;  Stein 3%. The sample of 1,516 Americans included 635 Democrats (41.9%), 527 Republicans (34.8%), 174 Independents (11.5%) and 180 (11.8%) who did not indicate a preference.  http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7349

The latest Gallup Party-ID survey indicates 28% Democrats, 28% Republicans and 42% Independents.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

In the July 17 Ipsos poll, Independents comprised just 14% of the sample. Stein had 1%. Clinton and Trump were tied.  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/strange-polls-jill-stein-at-1-and-just-14-of-respondents-are-independents/

Why the large discrepancies between the Ipsos poll and Gallup Party-ID survey?

The Ipsos poll also indicated a Party_ID split of  36% Democrats and  25% Republicans – an apparent contradiction to the polling sample. Assuming the other 39%  were Independents, it is a close match to the Gallup Survey.

In the primaries, Sanders won approximately 65% of Independents and at 35% of Democrats. One would logically expect that Stein would do nearly as well as Sanders against Clinton in a four-way race. They are in essential agreement on major issues – and Clinton has very low approval ratings. But Stein had an implausibly low 3% on Aug. 24 and 1% on July 17.

True Vote Model Model Base Case

This is not a forecast. It is a scenario analysis based on the following assumptions.

Party-ID:  39% Independents, 36% Democrats, 25% Republicans.
Vote shares: Stein has 40% of Independents and 35% of Democrats.  Clinton has 25% and 50%, respectively. They each have 5% of Republicans.

Base Case Result
Stein 29.45% and 231 EV,  Clinton 29.00% and 196 EV, Trump 25.15% and 111 EV. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1739803045

Party-ID	Pct	Stein	Clinton	Trump	Johnson
Ind	39%	40%	25%	15%	20%
Dem	36%	35%	50%	5%	10%
Rep	25%	5%	5%	70%	20%
Total	100%	29.45%	29.00%	25.15%	16.40%
Votes	129,106	38,022	37,441	32,470	21,173
Elect Vote	538	231	196	111	0

 

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS			Stein	% Dem
Stein %	31.0%	33.0%	35.0%	37.0%	39.0%
of Ind			Stein
45%	30.0%	30.7%	31.4%	32.1%	32.8%
40%	28.0%	28.7%	29.45%	30.2%	30.9%
35%	26.1%	26.8%	27.5%	28.2%	28.9%
			Clinton
45%	28.5%	27.8%	27.1%	26.3%	25.6%
40%	30.4%	29.7%	29.00%	28.3%	27.6%
35%	32.4%	31.7%	31.0%	30.2%	29.5%
			Stein	Margin
45%	1.5%	2.9%	4.4%	5.8%	7.2%
40%	-2.4%	-1.0%	0.45%	1.9%	3.3%
35%	-6.3%	-4.9%	-3.5%	-2.0%	-0.6%
			Vote Margin (000)
45%	1,898	3,757	5,616	7,475	9,334
40%	-3,137	-1,278	581	2,440	4,299
35%	-8,172	-6,313	-4,454	-2,595	-736

 

 

JFK: Proving the Warren Commission was a Hoax and Oswald was framed

Richard Charnin
Aug. 15, 2016

LINKS TO POSTS 
Reclaiming-Science: The JFK Conspiracy

Online trolls who try to discredit my election fraud analysis say that I am a JFK Conspiracy nut. I must be doing something right. For those who are interested, this is a quick JFK conspiracy course.

It takes just ONE of the following to prove that the Warren Commission was a Hoax and Oswald was framed….

1. One witness killed to prevent him or her from talking.
2. One witness killed to keep others from talking.
3. One bullet more than the three the WC claimed were fired.
4. One brain of JFK to be missing.
5. One eyewitness who definitely heard shots from the Grassy Knoll.
6. One eyewitness who definitely saw a shooter at the Grassy Knoll.
7. One person to order that Dallas police stand-down.
8. One person with fake Secret Service credentials at the Grassy Knoll.
9. One journalist to lie about JFK’s head movement.
10. One government agency to withhold evidence from investigators.
11. One person with the power to control the investigation.
12. One photo of Oswald in front of the TSBD at 12:30 to be tampered with.
13. One Zapruder frame to be switched or deleted to hide the limo full stop.
14. One conspirator on his death bed (EH Hunt) to claim Johnson was responsible for the “Big Event”.
15. One Parkland doctor describing entrance wounds in the neck and 5.5 inches below the collar in the back.
16. One of 44 Parkland and autopsy witnesses describing a massive exit wound in the back of the skull.
17. One fingerprint of LBJ hit man Mac Wallace on the TSBD 6th fl.
18. One cop (Roger Craig) to identify a 7.65 Mauser on the 6th fl.
19. One cop (Baker) seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor with a coke just 90 seconds after the shots were fired.
20. One Oswald note to the Dallas FBI (Hosty) destroyed because it may have revealed a plot to kill JFK.
21. One set of Dr. Humes original autopsy notes description of JFK’s wounds.
22. One autopsy photo tampered with to hide JFK’s exit wound.
23. One meeting on Nov. 21 in Dallas attended by Hoover, Johnson, Hunt, Murchison, Nixon, etc.
24. One photo of Poppy Bush standing in front of the TSBD.
25. One photo of Gen. Landsdale walking near the three tramps.
26. One witness (Carolyn Arnold) claiming Oswald was on the first floor of the TSBD at 12:25pm.
27. One WC member (Ford) to admit he raised the location of JFK’s back wound 5.5 inches.
28. One HSCA chairman (Sprague) fired for wanting to subpoena the CIA.
29. One HSCA chairman (Blakey) to admit a CIA cover up years later.
30. One WC lawyer (Specter) forced to create the physically impossible Single Bullet Theory.
31. One paraffin test to show that Oswald did not fire a rifle on Nov. 22.
32. One mob-connected friend (Ruby) of the Dallas police to silence Oswald.
33. One Dallas police chief (Fritz) to fail to record Oswald’s interrogation.
34. One Sheriff (Craig) to hear that Tippit was shot at 1:06pm on the radio.
35. One tampered photo of Oswald’s face superimposed on another body.
36. One Johnson mistress to claim LBJ said JFK would be taken care of.
37. One retired Police chief to say: “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand”.
38. One eyewitness (Sylvia Odio) to testify that she and her sister identified  Oswald as one of three men who came to her Dallas home on Sept. 25 .
39. One JFK limo with a bullet entry hole in the windshield.
40. One Oswald girl friend (Judyth Baker) hired by leading cancer expert Dr. Alton Ochsner to document working with Oswald (“Me and Lee”) and David Ferrie (“David Ferrie”) in  New Orleans  on a secret project to kill Castro.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FmXudDf6pqisxq_mepIC6iuG47RkDskPDWzQ9L7Lykw/pubchart?oid=1227986428&format=image

 

Primary Exit Polls: True vs. Recorded Vote

Richard Charnin
Updated: August 14, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primary spread sheet

There were 25 Democratic primary exit polls and 2 entrance polls (IA and NV). Clinton won the average adjusted exit poll (the recorded vote) by  56.6-43.4%. Sanders won the True Vote Model (TVM) by 52.3-47.7%.  The only difference between the TVM and the adjusted exit poll is voter turnout. 

The TVM uses a combination of the adjusted exit poll vote shares  and the latest Gallup Party ID survey percentages as a proxy for voter turnout. But this is conservative; it assumes there was no vote flipping on the central tabulators and/or the DREs.  Bernie must have done better than his average 52.3% share. 

Unadjusted exit polls: http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/wv/Dem
Gallup Party-ID Surveys: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx  

True Vote Party-ID  is estimated for each state based on the proportional change in National Party-ID  from 2014 to 2016.  The 2-party share of Independents increased from 37.4% to 57.3%. 

Bernie likely won an estimated 37 primaries and caucuses. The True Vote Model assumes that the Gallup survey of voter preference reflects actual turnout. This was not the case in closed primaries. On the other hand, mostly Bernie voters were purged from the rolls. And the model assumes no vote flipping which is unrealistic.

The model indicates that Bernie won a) 17 of 27 exit polled primaries (including the NV and IA entrance polled caucuses), b) 8 of 12 primaries where there were no exit polls (CA KY MT NM SD DE RI OR) and c) all 12 caucuses with a 65% average share.

Confirmation of the model: IA and NV
Bernie won the recorded vote in 14 caucuses with a 65% share. The model indicates that he won the IA entrance poll with 63.6% and NV with 61.7%.

 

2014	Exit poll Party ID		2016	Gallup Party-ID
Dem	Ind	Ind % 2-party	Dem	Ind	Ind % 2-party
40.5%	24.2%	37.4%	32.0%	43.0%	57.3%

True Vote Model Spreadsheet

c- closed primary

Avg	Exit Poll	56.6%	43.4%	True	47.7%	52.3%
	Recorded			Gallup
AL	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	23.0%	54.2%	45.8%	57.6%	54.2%	45.8%
DEM	77.0%	88.0%	12.0%	42.4%	88.0%	12.0%
Total	100.0%	80.2%	19.8%	100.0%	68.5%	31.5%
AR	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	28.0%	42.7%	57.3%	57.5%	42.7%	57.3%
DEM	72.0%	79.3%	20.7%	42.5%	79.3%	20.7%
Total	100.0%	69.0%	31.0%	100.0%	58.2%	41.8%
CT c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	22.0%	23.7%	76.3%	66.3%	23.7%	76.3%
DEM	78.0%	60.8%	39.2%	33.7%	60.8%	39.2%
Total	100.0%	52.6%	47.4%	100.0%	36.2%	63.8%
FL c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	21.0%	42.7%	57.3%	59.3%	42.7%	57.3%
DEM	79.0%	72.1%	27.9%	40.7%	72.1%	27.9%
Total	100.0%	65.9%	34.1%	100.0%	54.7%	45.3%
GA	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	24.0%	51.5%	48.5%	55.7%	51.5%	48.5%
DEM	76.0%	78.1%	21.9%	44.3%	78.1%	21.9%
Total	100.0%	71.7%	28.3%	100.0%	63.3%	36.7%
IA	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	24.0%	27.4%	72.6%	68.2%	27.4%	72.6%
DEM	76.0%	57.3%	42.7%	31.8%	57.3%	42.7%
Total	100.0%	50.1%	49.9%	100.0%	36.9%	63.1%
IL	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	23.0%	30.3%	69.7%	50.6%	30.3%	69.7%
DEM	77.0%	57.0%	43.0%	49.4%	57.0%	43.0%
Total	100.0%	50.9%	49.1%	100.0%	43.5%	56.5%
IN	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	24.0%	28.0%	72.0%	57.5%	28.0%	72.0%
DEM	76.0%	53.8%	46.2%	42.5%	53.8%	46.2%
Total	100.0%	47.6%	52.4%	100.0%	38.9%	61.1%
MA c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	35.0%	33.3%	66.7%	69.8%	33.3%	66.7%
DEM	65.0%	60.1%	39.9%	30.2%	60.1%	39.9%
Total	100.0%	50.7%	49.3%	100.0%	41.4%	58.6%
MD	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	20.0%	43.3%	56.7%	47.0%	43.3%	56.7%
DEM	80.0%	71.0%	29.0%	53.0%	71.0%	29.0%
Total	100.0%	65.5%	34.5%	100.0%	58.0%	42.0%
MI	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	31.0%	28.3%	71.7%	52.9%	28.3%	71.7%
DEM	69.0%	58.5%	41.5%	47.1%	58.5%	41.5%
Total	100.0%	49.2%	50.8%	100.0%	42.5%	57.5%
MO	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	26.0%	33.0%	67.0%	55.2%	33.0%	67.0%
DEM	74.0%	56.1%	43.9%	44.8%	56.1%	43.9%
Total	100.0%	50.1%	49.9%	100.0%	43.3%	56.7%
MS	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	14.0%	66.0%	34.0%	55.5%	66.0%	34.0%
DEM	86.0%	86.2%	13.8%	44.5%	86.2%	13.8%
Total	100.0%	83.4%	16.6%	100.0%	75.0%	25.0%
NC c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	30.0%	37.0%	63.0%	58.0%	37.0%	63.0%
DEM	70.0%	65.9%	34.1%	42.0%	65.9%	34.1%
Total	100.0%	57.2%	42.8%	100.0%	49.1%	50.9%
NH c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	42.0%	25.5%	74.5%	72.7%	25.5%	74.5%
DEM	58.0%	48.1%	51.9%	27.3%	48.1%	51.9%
Total	100.0%	38.6%	61.4%	100.0%	31.7%	68.3%
NV c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	19.0%	24.5%	75.5%	58.5%	24.5%	75.5%
DEM	81.0%	59.3%	40.7%	41.5%	59.3%	40.7%
Total	100.0%	52.7%	47.3%	100.0%	38.9%	61.1%
NY c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	17.0%	28.0%	72.0%	53.0%	28.0%	72.0%
DEM	83.0%	64.1%	35.9%	47.0%	64.1%	35.9%
Total	100.0%	57.9%	42.1%	100.0%	44.9%	55.1%
OH	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	26.0%	33.3%	66.7%	53.9%	33.3%	66.7%
DEM	74.0%	65.2%	34.8%	46.1%	65.2%	34.8%
Total	100.0%	56.9%	43.1%	100.0%	48.0%	52.0%
OK c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	34.0%	23.3%	76.7%	50.0%	23.3%	76.7%
DEM	66.0%	55.3%	44.7%	50.0%	55.3%	44.7%
Total	100.0%	44.5%	55.5%	100.0%	39.3%	60.7%
PA c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	18.0%	26.5%	73.5%	47.2%	26.5%	73.5%
DEM	82.0%	62.5%	37.5%	52.8%	62.5%	37.5%
Total	100.0%	56.1%	43.9%	100.0%	45.6%	54.4%
SC	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	25.0%	46.5%	53.5%	55.2%	46.5%	53.5%
DEM	75.0%	83.0%	17.0%	44.8%	83.0%	17.0%
Total	100.0%	73.9%	26.1%	100.0%	62.8%	37.2%
TN	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	29.0%	45.5%	54.5%	58.5%	45.5%	54.5%
DEM	71.0%	75.9%	24.1%	41.5%	75.9%	24.1%
Total	100.0%	67.1%	32.9%	100.0%	58.1%	41.9%
TX	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	24.0%	46.9%	53.1%	58.8%	46.9%	53.1%
DEM	76.0%	72.4%	27.6%	41.2%	72.4%	27.6%
Total	100.0%	66.3%	33.7%	100.0%	57.4%	42.6%
VA	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	24.0%	42.0%	58.0%	55.0%	42.0%	58.0%
DEM	76.0%	71.8%	28.2%	45.0%	71.8%	28.2%
Total	100.0%	64.6%	35.4%	100.0%	55.4%	44.6%
VT	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	44.0%	8.0%	92.0%	52.4%	8.0%	92.0%
DEM	56.0%	18.1%	81.9%	47.6%	18.1%	81.9%
Total	100.0%	13.7%	86.3%	100.0%	12.8%	87.2%
WI	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	29.0%	28.0%	72.0%	52.1%	28.0%	72.0%
DEM	71.0%	49.5%	50.5%	47.9%	49.5%	50.5%
Total	100.0%	43.3%	56.7%	100.0%	38.3%	61.7%
WV c	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders	Party-ID	Clinton	Sanders
IND	44.0%	26.6%	73.4%	50.9%	26.6%	73.4%
DEM	56.0%	65.9%	34.1%	49.1%	65.9%	34.1%
Total	100.0%	48.6%	51.4%	100.0%	45.9%	54.1%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/pubchart?oid=1968941681&format=image

 

From Nina Illingworth: “Wicked Game: the Clandestine Murder of Democracy in America”

Richard Charnin
Aug. 10, 2016

This post links to Nina Illingworth’s  terrific series on Election Fraud.  Although Nina did not  contact me, she researched my analysis extensively and accurately explained the essential focus along with providing much additional information. I cannot recommend this fantastic series more highly.

INTRODUCTION

Wicked Game: the Clandestine Murder of Democracy in America

 “History is a set of lies agreed on” – Bernard Le Bouyer de Fontenelle

If we’re being completely honest with each other, I’m not really sure when the true, horrifying nature of what I’d discovered really started to sink into my conscious mind – frankly, there’s a part of me that’s still deeply in shock about all of this and I don’t mind sharing that fact with you folks right from the outset. It’s not every day that you find yourself assembling overwhelming evidence that the Democratic Party Presidential nomination process is almost certainly fixed in favor of the establishment candidate, after all.

Rarer still I imagine, are days in which you accidentally stumble across the work of a qualified mathematician that seems to objectively prove every single fucking Presidential Election in America since at least 1988 is a goddamn sham – while simultaneously calling into question thousands of elections across all levels of government over that same time period. Worse yet, this realization in and of itself casts shadows of doubt over the last twenty-five years of history in the Western World; can any decision influenced in any way by the US government over that time truly be said to be “the will of the people” if you know without a doubt that there’s no such thing as a fair election anymore?

PART 1 – The 2016 Democratic Primary

This portion of our series focuses on exit polls, Richard Charnin and the overwhelming evidence currently available all over the internet that the 2016 Democratic Primary has been fixed for Hillary Clinton and against democratic socialist candidate Bernie Sanders. Please be reminded that while it is not necessary to follow the links in this article to understand what I’ve written, your comprehension of the piece will be greatly improved by doing so – particularly when discussing Charnin’s data.

PART 2- Hoosier Mommy
This installment of Wicked Game returns to the Democratic Primary, looks at the historical evidence of widespread election fraud in American politics since at least 1988 and cleans up some debunking attempts I forgot to discuss last time. Please be reminded that while it is not necessary to follow the links in this article to understand what I’ve written, your comprehension of the piece will be greatly improved by doing so – particularly when discussing data analyzed by Richard Charnin.

PART 3: Desert Scam
This installment of Wicked Game finds us wandering the barren, desert wasteland of Nevada to further examine the absolutely goddamn shameful behavior of Barbara Lange, Barbara Boxer and the entire state Democratic Convention Committee – everything is 1968 again as we hurtle towards a DNC in Philly that, with each passing day is starting to look more and more like a struggle for the very survival of democracy in our time. As always, please be reminded that while it is not necessary to follow the links in this article to understand what I’ve written, your comprehension of the work will be greatly improved by doing so.

 

Strange polls: Jill Stein at 1% and just 14% of respondents are Independents?

Richard Charnin
August 7, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primary spread sheet

Strange polls: Jill Stein at 1% and just 14% of respondents are Independents?

According to the Ipsos/Reuters poll,  only 14% of respondents were Independents and Jill Stein had just 2% of Independents. These results are implausible.

The latest Gallup Party-ID survey indicates that 42% are Independents, 28% Democrats and 28% Republicans. The 2-party shares:  60% Independents, 40% Democrats. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Are we expected to believe that all of Sanders’ primary voters have gone to Clinton and Trump?  http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7324

Ipsos	Pct	Stein	Clinton	Trump	Johnson
Ind	14%	2%	46%	46%	6%
Dem	47%	1%	81%	18%	0%
Rep	39%	1%	5%	80%	14%
Total	100%	1.14%	46.31%	46.22%	6.33%

If Stein matched Sanders’  primary shares of Independents and Democrats, she could win a fair election. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

Party-ID	Gallup Survey	Stein (est)	Clinton (est)	Trump (est)	Johnson (est)
Ind	42%	45%	30%	10%	15%
Dem	29%	40%	50%	5%	5%
Rep	29%	5%	5%	80%	10%
Total	100%	31.95%	28.55%	28.85%	10.65%
Votes	129,106	41,249	36,860	37,247	13,750
Elect Vote	538	308	3	227	0

In the primaries (25 exit and 2 entrance polls) Bernie Sanders had  65% of Independents, but just 45.3% of the total vote. 

The 42I-28D-28R Gallup Party-ID survey equates to  60I-40D in the primaries. Using this split for the 27 adjusted exit polls, Clinton needed 83.4% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. The adjusted polls indicate that Sanders had 64.6% of Independents.

This is highly anomalous.  http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls

 

Exit Poll States	Gallup Pct	Sanders	Clinton
IND	60.0%	64.6%	35.4%
Dem	40.0%	16.6%	83.4%
Recorded Match	100.0%	45.3%	54.7%
Recorded Vote		45.3%	54.7%

If  Sanders had 37% of Democrats, he would have had a total 53.6% share.

Exit Poll States	Gallup Pct	Sanders	Clinton
IND	60.0%	64.6%	35.4%
Dem	40.0%	37.0%	63.0%
Est. True Vote	100.0%	53.6%	46.4%
Recorded		45.3%	54.7%

Jill Stein Polling Sensitivity analysis

Assuming Independents are 40% of the electorate, then for Jill Stein to have
5%(implausible), she needs 12% of Independents and 0% of Democrats and Republicans.
10%(conservative), she needs 17% of Independents and 5% of Democrats and Republicans.
20%(plausible), she needs 35% of Independents and 10% of Democrats and Republicans.
30%(optimistic), she needs 52% of Independents and 15% of Democrats and Republicans.

 

Sanders had  52% of Independents in the 11 RED states. Clinton needed an IMPLAUSIBLE 97% of Democrats to match the recorded vote.

Sanders had  an estimated 65% of Independents in the 40 BLUE/OTHER states. If he had 30% of Democrats, he would have had 51%.

RED STATES		Pct	Sanders	Clinton
	IND	58.6%	52.0%	48.0%
Req. to Match	Dem	41.4%	3.0%	97.0%
	Calc Match	100.0%	31.7%	68.3%
	Recorded		31.7%	68.3%
OTHER STATES
	IND	60.0%	65.0%	35.0%
	Dem	40.0%	30.3%	69.8%
	Calc Match	100.0%	51.1%	48.9%
	Total Vote		51.1%	48.9%
RED STATES		2-party	Recorded	160
	IND	IND	Sanders	EV
AL	37.6%	57.6%	19.8%	9
AR	39.6%	57.5%	31.0%	6
FL	44.5%	59.3%	34.1%	29
GA	38.7%	55.7%	28.3%	16
LA	58.9%	73.4%	24.6%	8
MS	37.4%	55.5%	16.6%	6
NC	45.5%	58.0%	42.8%	15
SC	38.0%	55.2%	26.1%	9
TN	39.0%	58.5%	32.9%	11
TX	41.7%	58.8%	33.7%	38
VA	38.6%	55.0%	35.4%	13
avg	41.8%	58.6%	29.6%
Weighted Avg	42.0%	58.5%	31.7%

 

2016 Election Model: Stein vs. Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Stein vs.Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson

Richard Charnin
July 27, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primary spread sheet

The 2016 Election Model  indicates that  Green Party candidate Jill Stein can win a fraud-free election, based on a) recent Party-ID surveys and b) primary exit poll vote shares of Independents and Democrats.

The model assumes that Stein is on the ballot in every state. Various scenarios are displayed given  Party-ID assumptions and corresponding vote shares. It is not a forecast.

Statistical  evidence  based on manipulated voter rolls (strip),  impossible exit poll discrepancies (flip) and Wikileaks DNC e-mails suggest that Sanders easily won the True Vote in the primaries. The election was stolen in every way imaginable. 

Base Case

The assumption is that Stein will win 45% of Independents, 35% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans.  This results in a 30.6% win  – and 318 electoral votes.

In 2014, the National Party ID split was: 41% Democratic, 35% Republican and 24% Independent.  In  the model, we assume the current 2016 split: 40% Independents, 32% Democratic and 28% Republicans. 

Click this link to view the Gallup poll trend in Party affiliation: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Calculation Methodology

1-2016 state Party-ID: based on the change from 2014 National Party ID to 2016.
Example 2014 Illinois Party ID: from 47D-35R-18I  to 37D-28R-35I
2-State vote shares: apply estimated National shares to the state Party-ID  mix.
3-Electoral Vote summed for each candidate.

BASE CASE

Party-ID	Pct	Stein	Clinton	Trump	Johnson
Ind	40%	45%	25%	10%	20%
Dem	32%	35%	50%	5%	10%
Repub	28%	5%	5%	75%	15%
Total	100%	30.6%	27.4%	26.6%	15.4%
Votes	129,106	39,506	35,375	34,342	19,882
Elect Vote	538	318	11	209	0

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

What if Stein’s share of Democrats and Independents varies from the base case scenario?

The tables show Stein and Trump vote shares and corresponding margins for 25 scenarios: Stein gets 31-39% of Democrats and 40-50% of Independents. The Base Case is in the central cell of each table (Stein has 30.6%).

Stein wins 13 of the 15 scenarios.

			Stein	% Dem
Stein %	31.0%	33.0%	35.0%	37.0%	39.0%
of Ind			Stein
50%	31.3%	32.0%	32.6%	33.2%	33.9%
45%	29.3%	30.0%	30.6%	31.2%	31.9%
40%	27.3%	28.0%	28.6%	29.2%	29.9%
			Trump
50%	25.9%	25.2%	24.6%	24.0%	23.3%
45%	27.9%	27.2%	26.6%	26.0%	25.3%
40%	29.9%	29.2%	28.6%	28.0%	27.3%
			Stein	Margin
50%	5.4%	6.7%	8.0%	9.3%	10.6%
45%	1.4%	2.7%	4.0%	5.3%	6.6%
40%	-2.6%	-1.3%	0.0%	1.3%	2.6%
			Stein	Vote Margin (000)
50%	7,023	8,676	10,328	11,981	13,634
45%	1,859	3,512	5,164	6,817	8,469
40%	-3,305	-1,653	0	1,653	3,305

 

Jill Stein Polling Sensitivity analysis

Assuming Independents are 40% of the electorate, then for Jill Stein to have

–  5%  (implausible), she needs 12% of Independents and 0% of Democrats and Republicans.

–  10% (conservative), she needs 17% of Independents and 5% of Democrats and Republicans.

–  20% (plausible), she needs 35% of Independents and 10% of Democrats and Republicans.

–  30% (optimistic), she needs 52% of Independents and 15% of Democrats and Republicans.

In the tables, Independents range from 10-40%

A Stein share of IND greater than 100% or less than zero is impossible (na)

	Stein Poll	30%
Stein%	10%	20%	30%	40%
of Dem + Rep		Stein%  of IND
0%	na	na	100.0%	75.0%
5%	na	na	88.3%	67.5%
10%	na	na	76.7%	60.0%
15%	na	na	65.0%	52.5%
	Stein Poll	20%
Stein%	10%	20%	30%	40%
of Dem + Rep		Stein % of IND
0%	na	na	66.7%	50.0%
5%	na	na	55.0%	42.5%
10%	na	60.0%	43.3%	35.0%
15%	65.0%	40.0%	31.7%	27.5%
	Stein Poll	10%
Stein%	10%	20%	30%	40%
of Dem + Rep		Stein% IND
0%	na	50.0%	33.3%	25.0%
5%	55.0%	30.0%	21.7%	17.5%
10%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%
15%	na	na	na	2.5%
	Stein Poll	5%
Stein%	10%	20%	30%	40%
of Dem + Rep		Stein% IND
0%	50.0%	25.0%	16.7%	12.5%
5%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%
10%	na	na	na	na
15%	na	na	na	na

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/pubchart?oid=1996781143&format=image