RSS

Category Archives: True Vote Models

The 2016 True Vote Model (TVM)

Richard Charnin
Aug. 20, 2017

In 2012, National and state exit polls stopped asking the question: “Who did you vote for in the last election”. Exit polls are always forced a match to the recorded vote assuming there is zero fraud.

In the 2016 TVM, vote shares required to match the recorded vote are calculated.
The True Vote is estimated by adjusting prior election voter turnout while using the same vote shares used in the recorded vote match.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=664338739

MICHIGAN

There are two sets of voter turnout assumptions. Vote shares are the same in each.

Case 1. Equal 95% turnout of returning Obama and Romney voters. Vote shares are calculated to automatically match the RECORDED vote.
Trump wins by 47.50-47.27% (10,821 votes)

Case 2. Base case TRUE VOTE
Estimate: 88% turnout of Obama, 95% turnout of Romney voters.
Trump wins by 48.75-45.97% (133,000 votes)
Assumption:  1 in 7 Bernie Sanders voters in the primary who voted for Obama did not return to vote in the presidential election as they were cheated in the primaries.

True Vote Sensitivity Analysis:
View a 25 scenario matrix for 5 Trump shares of returning Obama and 5 Trump shares of returning Romney voters. Trump wins 20 of 25 scenarios.

Worst case: Clinton wins by 48.6-46.1% (117,000 votes)
Base case: Trump wins by 48.7-46.0% (133,000 votes)
Best case: Trump wins by 50.5-44.3% (297,000 votes)

NATIONAL
US 2016 True Vote Model
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1768941212

 
 

Tags: ,

2016 Election Model- 9 pre-election polls: 5 Non-MSM and 4 MSM pollsters

Richard Charnin
Aug, 4, 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
LINKS TO  POSTS

The following are the basic steps used to estimate 2016 National True Vote shares.  The True Vote Model utilizes nine  pre-election polls.  Party-ID varies greatly among the polls. Therefore, Gallup’s dedicated voter affiliation (Party-ID) survey is used to adjust the national poll shares.

The 2016 Gallup national survey is used to approximate state Party-IDs by calculating the change from 2012 National Party-ID to 2016 Gallup Party-ID.  The projected state vote share is calculated by applying the average of the 9 national pre-election Party-ID poll shares to the 2016 state Party-ID. The electoral vote is then calculated. View the full set of calculations in this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1036175945

National True Vote Model: Basic Methodology

1) Compare MSM vs. non-MSM polls (Party-ID and vote shares).
2) Adjust pollsters Party-ID to Gallup voter affiliation
3) Allocate undecided voters.
4) View the effect of these adjustments to the pre-election vote shares.

  • MSM pollsters overweighted Democrats Party-ID and underweighted Independents compared to non-MSM pollsters. Clinton wins the polls by 45.8-43.6%, matching her 2.1% recorded vote margin.
  • 2 Apply Gallup voter affiliation survey of National Party-ID (40I-32D-28R)  to each of the nine polls, Trump is a 44.1-43.3% winner.
  • 3 Note: the polls did not allocate undecided voters (approximately 6%), which typically break 3-1 for the challenger. Trump was the de-facto challenger.
  • 4 Effect: Allocating  undecided voters (4.5% to Trump and 1.5% to Clinton) to the Gallup-adjusted vote shares, Trump is the winner by 48.6-44.8%.

Non-MSM………….Party-ID…………..Pre-election……….Gallup (40I-32D-28R)
Polls………………Ind Dem Rep…….. Clinton..Trump…..Clinton Trump
IBD………………..37% 34% 29%…….. 43%….45%……..41.9% 45.3%
Rasmussen……..32% 40% 28%………45%….43%……..40.6% 45.3%
Quinnipiac………26% 40% 34%………47%….40%……..44.7% 40.8%
Gravis……………27% 40% 33%………47%….45%……..43.6% 45.5%
USC/Dormsite… 30% 38% 32%………44%….47%……..41.7% 48.2%
Average………..30.4% 38.4% 31.2%…45.2%.44.0%…..42.5% 45.0%

MSM……………..Party-ID……………..Pre-election…….Gallup Adj
Polls…………….Ind Dem Rep………..Clinton Trump..Clinton Trump
Reuters…………16% 45% 38%………42% ….39%…….36.0% 36.8%
Fox News………19% 43% 38%………48%…..44%…….45.8% 43.9%
CNN……………..43% 31% 26%………49%……44%…..48.6% 44.4%
ABC ……………..29% 37% 29%………47%…..45%……46.8% 47.0%
Average………26.8% 39.0% 32.8%…46.5% 43.0%……44.3% 43.0%

Summary…………….Party-ID…………Pre-election……Gallup Adj
…………………Ind…..Dem….Rep……Clinton.Trump..Clinton Trump
9 polls……….28.8% 38.7% 31.9%…..45.8% 43.6%…..43.3% 44.1%
5 nonMSM….30.4% 38.4% 31.2%…..45.2% 44.0%….42.5% 45.0%
4 MSM………26.8% 39.0% 32.8%…..46.5% 43.0%……44.3% 43.0%

Allocating  undecided voters (4.5% to Trump and 1.5% to Clinton) to the Gallup-adjusted vote shares, Trump is the winner by 48.6-44.8%.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 5, 2017 in 2016 election, True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , ,

2016 National Exit Poll vs. True Vote Model: How did you vote in the 2012 election?

Richard Charnin
July 9, 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
LINKS TO  POSTS

The 2008 presidential election was the last one in which the National (NEP) and state exit polls asked “How Did You Vote in the Last Election?”. A plausible reason is that the question provided clear proof of fraud in all elections from 1988-2008. The How Voted crosstab matrix required more returning Bush voters than were still alive in order to match the bogus recorded vote in 1992 (119% turnout), 2004 (110%) and 2008 (103%). Conversely, the True Vote Model, which used a feasible estimate of returning voters, confirmed the unadjusted, pristine state and national exit polls.

Since the “How Voted” question was not asked, we can derive a crosstab to match the 2016 recorded vote using assumptions for 2012 returning voter turnout and 2016 vote shares.

General Assumption: 1% Annual voter mortality

2016 Estimated National Exit Poll assumptions
Equal 96% turnout of living 2012 Obama and Romney voters.
Clinton wins 87% of returning Obama and 7% of returning Romney voters.
Trump wins 7% of returning Obama and 88% of returning Romney voters.
Trump wins new voters by 48-47%.
Clinton wins by 2.9 million recorded votes, 48.3-46.2%.

2016 True Vote Model assumptions
Voter turnout: 92% of living Obama voters and 96% of Romney voters
Clinton wins 82% of returning Obama and 7% of returning Romney voters
Trump wins 10% of returning Obama and 88% of returning Romney voters
New voters: Trump and Clinton 45% tie
Trump wins the base case scenario by 3.6 million votes, 47.8-45.1%.

2016 TVM rationale
– 96% Romney voter turnout vs. 92% for Obama: approximately 2.5 million living Obama voters were angry Sanders voters who did not vote.
– Clinton’s 82% share of returning Obama voters: approximately 2.6 million Obama voters were angry Sanders voters who defected to Jill Stein, Trump and Johnson.

NATIONAL EXIT POLL – is always forced to match the recorded vote
“HOW VOTED IN 2012” was not asked in the 2016 NEP.
It would have looked something like this…
2016….. Mix Clinton Trump Other
Obama…. 44.6% 87% 7% 6%
Romney… 41.2% 7% 88% 5%
Other…… 1.5% 45% 45% 10%
DNV….. 12.6% 47% 48% 5.4%

Total…. 100% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5%
Vote…. 136.2 65.7 62.9 7.6

TRUE VOTE
2012….. Mix Clinton Trump Other
Obama…. 42.7% 82% 10% 8%
Romney… 41.2% 7% 88% 5%
Other…… 1.5% 45% 45% 10%
DNV…… 14.5% 45% 45% 10%

Total…. 100% 45.1% 47.8% 7.1%
Vote…. 136.2 61.5 65.1 9.7

Sensitivity analysis
The tables display Trump’s total vote share and margin over a range of 25 scenarios of his  shares of returning Obama (8-12%) and Romney voters (86-90%). He wins 24 of the 25 scenarios. In the worst case scenario, Trump loses by 1 million votes (46.9-46.1%). In the best case, he wins by 8 million (49.5-43.5%). Trump wins the base case scenario by 3.6 million votes, 47.8-45.1%.

View the spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1768941212

 
 

Tags: , , , ,

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Proving Election Fraud: The PC, Spreadsheets and the Internet

Richard Charnin
Mar. 31, 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 Exit Poll 
LINKS TO POSTS

Election Fraud Overview

This post is an overview of major advances in technology which ultimately proved that election fraud is systemic. There were three major turning points:

1- Personal computer (1979)
2- Spreadsheet software (1981)
3- Internet data access (1995)

A BRIEF HISTORY OF COMPUTERS AND SPREADSHEET TECHNOLOGY

Before the advent of the personal computer,  mainframes and minicomputers were programmed by professionals  in major corporations. Programming was hard and time consuming. Computers were used by scientists, engineers, investment bankers and other analytical professionals.

In 1965, my first job was as a numerical control FORTRAN programmer in the aerospace industry. The 7094 IBM mainframe  was a 512k machine which required a full floor of office space. It was on rental from the U.S. Navy.

Computers grew in power and were smaller in size during the 1970s. As manager of software development in Investment Banking  at Merrill Lynch on Wall Street . I used FORTRAN to develop financial models.

In the late 1970s, personal computers were considered as toys- until the first spreadsheets appeared. All of a sudden,  one could do simple calculations without having to write complex programs. Lotus 1-2-3 had limited programming features (“macros”). I immediately converted  FORTRAN financial programs to spreadsheets  with graphics capabilities. As a consultant to major domestic and foreign  corporations I switched to Excel in 1995 . Excel was used with C++ for advanced financial data base and derivatives models.

MATRIX OF DECEIT

A matrix is just a table (rectangular array) of numbers. In a spreadsheet, the table consists of data in cells (column, row). Basic arithmetic operations applied to the matrix are sufficient to prove election fraud. 

Actual, raw unadjusted exit poll results are changed in all matrix crosstabs (demographics) to conform to the recorded vote. The crosstab “How Did You Vote in the previous  election?” has proved to be the Smoking Gun in detecting presidential election fraud from 1988-2008. 

2000

Gore won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and State Exit Poll aggregate which indicated that he won by 3-5 million votes – not the 540,000 recorded. But the National Exit Poll  was forced to match the recorded vote. The election was stolen – big time.

2000 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,108 respondents)
Total Gore Bush Nader Other
13,108 6,359 6,065 523 161
48.51% 46.27% 3.99% 1.23%

 

2000 Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate
Voted ’96 Turnout Mix Gore Bush Other
New/DNV 17,732 16% 52% 43% 5%
Clinton 48,763 44% 87% 10% 3%
Dole 35,464 32% 7% 91% 2%
Perot/other 8,866 8% 23% 65% 12%
Total cast 110,825 100% 50.68% 45.60% 3.72%
110,825 56,166 50,536 4,123

 

2000 National Exit Poll (forced to match recorded vote)
Voted ’96 Turnout Mix Gore Bush Other
New/DNV 18,982 18% 52% 43% 5%
Clinton 42,183 40% 87% 10% 3%
Dole 35,856 34% 7% 91% 2%
Other 8,437 8% 23% 65% 12%
Total 105,458 100% 48.38% 47.87% 3.75%
105,458 51,004 50,456 3,998

2004

The Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush won by 3 million). The election was stolen.

Kerry won the unadjusted National Exit Poll and  State Exit Poll aggregate by 6 million votes. The True Vote Model (assuming a plausible estimate of returning 2000 election voters)  indicated that he won by 10 million votes with a 53.7% share.  

                                           2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13,660 respondents)
Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
share 51.71% 47.0% 1.3%

 

                   2004 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
                             (implausible 2000 returning voters; Gore won by 4-6m)
2000 Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 23,116 18.38% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 48,248 38.37% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 49,670 39.50% 10% 90% 0%
Other 4,703 3.74% 64% 17% 19%
Total 125,737 100% 51.8% 46.8% 1.5%
125,737 65,070 58,829 1,838

 

2004 Final Adjusted National Exit Poll
                      (Impossible Bush 2000 voter turnout; forced to match recorded vote)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout
DNV 20,790 17% 54% 44% 2%
Gore 45,249 37% 90% 10% 0% 48,454 93%
Bush 52,586 43% 9% 91% 0% 47,933 110%
Other 3,669 3% 64% 14% 22% 3,798 97%
Total 122,294 100% 48.27% 50.73% 1.00% 100,185 94%
59,031 62,040 1,223

2008

Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 61-37% (a 30 million vote margin). He won the  State Exit Poll aggregate 58-40% (a 23 million vote margin). But the Final National Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded 9.5 million vote margin. The landslide was denied.

                                      2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents)
Obama McCain Other
17,836 10,873 6,641 322
100% 61.0% 37.2% 1.8%

 

                      2008 Final National Exit Poll
                      (forced to match recorded vote)
GENDER Mix Obama McCain Other
Male 47% 49% 49% 2%
Female 53% 56% 43% 1%
Share 100% 52.87% 45.59% 1.54%
Votes(mil) 131.463 69.50 59.94 2.02

 

2008 Unadjusted National Exit Poll
 (plausible returning 2004 voter mix)
Voted 2004 2008 Exact match to TVM & unadj state exit pollls
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV 17.66 13.43% 71% 27% 2%
Kerry 50.18% 57.11 43.44% 89% 9% 2%
Bush 44.62% 50.78 38.63% 17% 82% 1%
Other 5.20% 5.92 4.50% 72% 26% 2%
Total 131.46 100% 58.00% 40.35% 1.65%
Votes 131.463 76.25 53.04 2.17

 

Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
(forced to match recorded vote with
Voted 2004 2008 impossible returning 2004 voters)
2004 Implied Votes Mix Obama McCain Other
DNV 17.09 13% 71% 27% 2%
Kerry 42.53% 48.64 37% 89% 9% 2%
Bush 52.87% 60.47 46% 17% 82% 1%
Other 4.60% 5.26 4% 72% 26% 2%
Total 131.46 100% 52.87% 45.60% 1.54%
Votes 131.463 69.50 59.95 2.02

2004 Sensitivity Analysis

How is Kerry’s vote share effected by changes in vote share assumptions? Consider the following matrices (tables). He wins all plausible scenarios. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_foUi89DGNmwspKRFTgh5tOjjba4el2GLJEJLK-M2V8/edit#gid=0

2004 True Vote Model
                    (Plausible 2000 returning voter mix)
2000 Voted Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV 22,381 17.8% 57% 41% 2%
Gore 52,055 41.4% 91% 8% 1%
Bush 47,403 37.7% 10% 90% 0%
Other 3,898 3.1% 64% 17% 19%
Total 125,737 100% 53.6% 45.1% 1.4%
67,362 56,666 1,709
                           Kerry share of returning Gore voters
89.0% 90.0% 91.0% 92.0% 93.0%
Share of returning Bush 2000                                              Kerry Vote Share
12.0% 53.2% 53.6% 54.1% 54.5% 54.9%
11.0% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7% 54.1% 54.5%
10.0% 52.5% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7% 54.1%
9.0% 52.1% 52.5% 52.9% 53.3% 53.7%
8.0% 51.7% 52.1% 52.5% 52.9% 53.4%
      Margin (000)    
12.0% 9,827 10,859 11,892 12,924 13,956
11.0% 8,871 9,903 10,935 11,967 13,000
10.0% 7,914 8,946 9,978 11,011 12,043
9.0% 6,957 7,990 9,022 10,054 11,086
8.0% 6,001 7,033 8,065 9,097 10,130
                    Kerry share of New voters (DNV)
Kerry share of 53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 59.0% 61.0%
returning Bush 2000 voters   Kerry Vote Share  
12.0% 53.3% 53.7% 54.1% 54.4% 54.8%
11.0% 53.0% 53.3% 53.7% 54.0% 54.4%
10.0% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.6% 54.0%
9.0% 52.2% 52.6% 52.9% 53.3% 53.6%
8.0% 51.8% 52.2% 52.5% 52.9% 53.2%
      Margin    
12.0% 10,098 10,995 11,892 12,789 13,686
11.0% 9,141 10,038 10,935 11,832 12,729
10.0% 8,184 9,081 9,978 10,876 11,773
9.0% 7,228 8,125 9,022 9,919 10,816
8.0% 6,271 7,168 8,065 8,962 9,859
Kerry Win Probability  53.0% 55.0% 57.0% 59.0%  61.0%
Win Prob  (3% MoE)
12.0% 99.6% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0%
11.0% 99.2% 99.6% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0%
10.0% 98.4% 99.2% 99.6% 99.8% 99.9%
9.0% 97.2% 98.4% 99.1% 99.6% 99.8%
8.0% 95.1% 97.0% 98.3% 99.1% 99.5%
 

Tags: , , , , ,

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

Richard Charnin
Nov. 19, 2014
Updated Sept.30, 2015

My Website: Election Fraud and JFK
Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

This question has proven to be devastating for those who still believe there is no such thing as election fraud. So devastating, it was not asked in the 2012 presidential exit poll or the 2014 House exit poll.

The exit pollsters freely admit that they adjust the polls to match the recorded vote. The rationale is that since the exit polls are always off by an 8% average margin, they must be adjusted to match the pristine, fraud-free recorded vote. The pollsters never consider the possibility that the unadjusted exit polls were accurate; they claim that the discrepancies are due to consistently bad polling.

So why do the pollsters get paid the big bucks from the National Election Pool? In any other profession, if your analysis is way off, you had better get it right the next time. If it’s way off on your second try, you get one more chance. If you fail a third time, that’s it. Someone else gets your job. But here’s the catch: the pollsters were accurate; the unadjusted polls matched the True Vote. So why did they have to adjust the polls to match the bogus recorded vote?

The unadjusted exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote in every presidential election since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national exit polls by 52-42%, but won the the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the discrepancy: 1 in trillions. The exit polls were right. The vote counts were wrong. It’s as simple as that.

Does the rationale sound crazy to you? Despite all of the anecdotal evidence of election fraud, it is never considered by the corporate media (the National Election Pool) who fund the exit pollsters.

This graph shows that in the 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the National Exit Poll was forced to claim there was over 100% turnout of living Nixon, Bush1 and Bush2 voters from the prior election. Impossible – and proof of fraud.

I have been posting on this very unscientific procedure since 2004. In this post I will review the basic method used to match the vote: changing the mix of returning voters. We will look at the 2004-2008 presidential elections and the 2010-2014 Wisconsin and Florida governor elections. The pattern of deceit will be revealed by adjustments made to the number of exit poll respondents and returning voters to match the official recorded vote counts – and cover up the fraud.

2004 Presidential
There were 13,660 National Exit Poll respondents and 51.7% said they voted for Kerry. But Bush won the recorded vote by 50.8-48.3%. So the pollsters had to switch 6.7% of Kerry respondents to Bush.

Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and another million did not return in 2004. Therefore, there were at most 47.5 million returning Bush 2000 voters. The National Exit poll indicated that 52.6 million Bush 2000 voters returned in 2004. The pollsters had to create at least 5 million phantom Bush voters. Of course, this made no sense. But who questioned it? Who even knew about it? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-final-2004-national-exit-poll-switched-7-2-of-kerry-responders-to-bush/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7

2008 Presidential
There were 17,836 National Exit Poll respondents. Obama had 61% in the unadjusted poll but just 53% in the vote count. The adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 46% of 2008 voters (60 million) were returning Bush 2004 voters and 37% (48 million) returning Kerry voters.This was impossible; it implied a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters. Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million. But Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 6 million and the True vote by nearly 10 million. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

2010 Florida Governor
Scott defeated Sink with 50.59% of the 2-party vote. But Sink easily won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (3150 respondents, 2% margin of error). In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll indicated a 47/47% split in returning Obama and McCain voters, 3% were new and 3% returning 3rd party (other) -but vote shares were NA for new and other voters. In order to match the recorded vote, Scott needed 67% of the 6% NA. This is implausible. Based on the unadjusted exit poll, Sink had 57% of this group.

2014 Florida Governor
Scott had 50.58% of the 2-party vote, within .01% of his 2010 share. Just a coincidence? The question How Did You Vote in 2010? was not asked, so let’s look at the Florida exit poll Party-ID demographic. There were 11.9 million registered voters. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 500,000 (38.8% Dem; 35.0% Rep; 26.2% Other). But in matching the recorded vote, the Party-ID split was 31D-35R-33I. Assuming that the True split was equal to the actual voter registration mix, Crist is the winner by 50.9-44.6%. Crist had stronger support among Democrats (91%) than Scott had among Republicans (88%). He won Independents by 46-44%. So how did he lose?

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (matched recorded vote)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat........31% 91% 6% 3%
Republican......35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent.....33% 46% 44% 8%
Total...........99% 46.9% 47.2% 4.3%
Votes..........5.88 2.78 2.80 0.25

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (Registration Mix)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat.......39% 91% 6% 3%
Republican.....35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent....26% 46% 44% 10%
Total..........100% 50.9% 44.6% 4.5%
Votes......... 5.94 3.03 2.65 0.265

2012 Wisconsin Walker Recall
In 2008, Obama won Wisconsin with a 56.2% recorded share. He had 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll, far beyond the 2.5% margin of error. The exit poll is strong evidence that election fraud sharply reduced Obama’s True Vote.

In 2010, Walker won by 124,638 votes with a 52.3% share. in 2012, he won the recall by 171,105 votes with 53.1%. But the True Vote Model (TVM) showed that he needed 23% of Obama returning voters to match the recorded vote. That is extremely implausible – and a red flag. It’s further evidence that Barrett won the election. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/the-walker-recall-true-vote-model-implausible-vote-shares-required-to-match-the-vote/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=t4pqdOMFhfNwaIq8ELOAg_w#gid=32

2014 Wisconsin Governor
Walker won with a 52.9% share. In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll showed that returning 2012 Barrett voters comprised 35% of 2014 voters compared to 50% for returning Walker voters. The 15% spread is implausible. Compare it to Walker’s 7% recorded 2012 margin and Barrett’s estimated 6% True Vote margin (a whopping 21% discrepancy).Assuming a feasible Barrett 45/Walker 41% returning voter mix, Burke is the winner by 52.3-47.3%.

In the “How Voted in 2012” crosstab, vote shares are missing for Other (3%) and New Voters (DNV 11%). How many of the missing 14% voted for Burke? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/wisconsin-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAq0CJ1QSfy4JaNYpM_5esTafUdpt3ipgJU0Iz8RlD0/edit#gid=2079407084

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/2014/USElections2014.pdf

 

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

Florida 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Florida 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov.14, 2014
Updated: Sept.28, 2015

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

For the first time since 2000, I did not plan on forecasting the 2014 election or run a post-election True Vote analysis. Systemic Election Fraud has been proven beyond any doubt, so why bother? Nothing has changed; the media and congress refuse to investigate. They continue to promote the myth that the recorded vote is the True Vote and Election Fraud does not exist.

But I decided to analyze a few close, disputed elections.

In the 2014 FL Governor election, Scott(R) defeated Crist(D) by 64,145 votes out of 5.95 million cast (48.1-47.1%). Third-party candidates had 4.8%.

In 2010, Scott defeated Sink(D) by 62,000 votes (49.6- 48.4%). Sink won the unadjusted exit poll (3,150 respondents): 50.8-45.4-3.8%. The margin of error was 2%.

The fact that the 2014 2-party share exactly matched 2010 is a red flag by itself. Crist won the 2-party True Vote by 52.0-48.0%.

Cumulative Vote Share analysis in the largest counties indicated the usual pattern of increasing GOP vote shares in larger (generally Democratic) precincts:

The key to understanding that elections are rigged is to take a close look at the exit polls. All exit poll crosstabs must be adjusted in order to force the poll to match the recorded vote. In the “How did you Vote in the Last Election” question, there are two sets of adjustments: a) how returning voters from the prior election voted and b) how returning and new voters in the current election voted. Generally, the most flagrant adjustment is made to the percentages of how they voted in the prior election.

Since unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later, we only have the adjusted published polls. The pattern never changes: exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. It is standard operating procedure. The pollsters claim the matching is to correct polling error. Pollsters and media pundits want the public to believe the myth: recorded vote count is pristine and there is zero fraud. But there is no longer any doubt. Election fraud is pervasive and systemic.

The 2014FLGov spreadsheet contains the following worksheets:
– 2014 National House Exit Poll (‘2014 NEP’)
– 2010 Florida Exit Poll (‘2010 FL EP’)
– 2014 Florida Exit Poll (‘2014 FL EP’)
– 2014 FL County Vote vs. 2010 (“Counties’)
– 2014 True Vote Model (‘True Vote’)
– 2014 Florida Cumulative Vote Shares

Cumulative Vote Share analysis shows that Scott gained vote share going from small to large precincts in virtually all counties. This is counter-intuitive. The largest precincts are generally in Urban areas which are heavily Democratic.

................ Crist cumulative precinct vote shares
County..........Votes...25.% 50.% 75.% 100% % Chg VoteChg

Brevard.........207,638 45.6 44.2 44.5 43.8 -1.8 -3,737
Broward.........457,344 71.8 71.0 71.0 69.7 -2.1 -9,604
Dade............509,738 60.9 60.7 60.4 59.8 -1.1 -5,607
Duval...........257,773 56.0 46.5 45.1 43.3 -12.7 -32,737
Hillsborough....350,022 57.4 55.7 54.1 51.5 -5.9 -20,651

Lee.............201,416 45.2 43.1 41.6 39.4 -5.8 -11,682
Marion..........112,571 45.9 44.2 41.9 41.2 -4.7 -5,291
Orange..........292,584 64.6 60.1 58.6 56.2 -8.4 -24,577
Palm Beach......407,070 61.7 62.4 61.9 60.6 -1.1 -4,478
Pinellas........328,201 61.2 58.9 56.7 56.0 -5.2 -17,066

Polk............177,609 48.6 47.4 46.4 44.7 -3.9 -6,927
Volusia.........165,064 51.2 51.8 49.4 48.1 -3.1 -5,117

Total.........3,467,030 58.7 56.8 55.8 54.4 -4.3 -147,475


County CVS graphs
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17naKWzaLDkRaYfgiTAJfkJ5pFDoI_rv4HXfXcLyD4Ls/edit#gid=318098598

2014 NEP (forced to match the recorded vote)
This sheet contains a selected set of crosstabs (demographics). The Gender demographic is within 0.6% of the recorded vote because it was forced to match the vote. The exit poll margin of error was approximately 2%. The probability of a 0.6% deviation is close to zero. The deviation illustrates that the pollsters forced the match. But that’s not news. It’s standard operating procedure – and unscientific. It’s no different then a serial thief daring the police to stop him. But they never do even though they have the statistical evidence of fraud and a signed confession.

Florida 2010 Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
Scott won by 49.6-48.4%, a 62,000 vote margin. But Sink (D) won the unadjusted exit poll by 283,000 votes (50.8-45.4%, a 6.6% margin discrepancy). There were 3,150 exit poll respondents and a 2.3% poll margin of error. Sink had a 99% win probability. But the poll was forced to match the recorded vote.

Just as in presidential election exit polls, the returning 2008 voter percentages were implausible. In the ’Voted in 2010′ crosstab, 47% of 2010 voters were returning Obama voters and 47% were returning McCain voters. But Obama won the Florida 2008 unadjusted exit poll by 6% So how does one explain the equal 47% mix of returning voters? This is the standard ‘tell’: the mix is adjusted to maximize the Republican vote and minimize the Democratic vote. The mix and the vote shares were changed to reflect the 2008 unadjusted exit poll.
Sink is the winner of the True vote by 50.8-45.4%

2010 Unadjusted Exit Poll
................Sink Scott Other
Respondents.....1600 1431 119
Poll Share......50.8% 45.4% 3.8%
Poll Vote.......2683 2400 200
Margin..........283

2010 True Vote
2008...........Vote Mix Sink Scott Other
Obama...........989 49.7% 88% 10% 2%
McCain..........848 42.6% 7% 87% 2%
Other...........220 6.0% 53% 44% 3%
DNV..............34 1.7% 53.0% 44.0% 3%
True Vote.......1991
Respondents....1991 100% 50.8% 45.4% 3.8%
Votes...................5282 2683 2399 200
Margin 195

2010 Exit Poll (adjusted to match recorded vote)
2008............Mix Sink Scott Other
Obama...........47% 88% 10% 2%
McCain..........47% 11% 87% 2%
Other............3% 31% 67% 2%
DNV..............3% 31% 67% 2%
Total..........100% 48.4% 49.6% 2.0%
Votes.................. 2556 2620 106
Margin -64

Florida 2014 Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
The How Voted in 2010 crosstab was not listed, but we have the True Vote model. The returning voter mix was changed to reflect the 2010 unadjusted exit poll. Crist is the winner of the True vote by 52-48%.

Party ID
Scott had 50.58% of the 2-party vote, within .01% of his 2010 share. Just a coincidence? The question How Did You Vote in 2010? was not asked, so let’s look at the Florida exit poll Party-ID demographic. There were 11.9 million registered voters. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 500,000 (38.8% Dem; 35.0% Rep; 26.2% Other). But in matching the recorded vote, the Party-ID split was 31D-35R-33I. Assuming that the True split was equal to the actual voter registration mix, Crist is the winner by 50.9-44.6%. Crist had stronger support among Democrats (91%) than Scott had among Republicans (88%). He won Independents by 46-44%. So how did he lose?

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (matched recorded vote)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat........31% 91% 6% 3%
Republican......35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent.....33% 46% 44% 8%
Total...........99% 46.9% 47.2% 4.3%
Votes..........5.88 2.78 2.80 0.25

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (Registration Mix)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat.......39% 91% 6% 3%
Republican.....35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent....26% 46% 44% 10%
Total..........100% 50.9% 44.6% 4.5%
Votes......... 5.94 3.03 2.65 0.265

Counties
There were nearly 500,000 more voters in 2014 than 2010. Presumably, this increase in turnout would be expected to help Crist. As mentioned, Sink won the True Vote in 2010. But Scott’s 2014 margin increased by 5,000 votes. This is counter-intuitive; strong turnout always favors the Democrats.

The True Vote Model
The model data was updated for 2014 using 2010 returning and new voters. The assumptions for the base case scenario:
1) Sink had a 52.2% True Vote share in 2010
2) In 2014, there was a 93% turnout of living 2010 voters
3) Crist had 92.5% of returning Sink voters
4) Crist had 6.9% of returning Scott voters
5) Crist had 54% of new voters

In the Base Case scenario, Crist had a 52.0% share and won by 224,000 votes. The Sensitivity analysis shows Crist’s total vote share and margins over a range of 18 scenarios. He won 17.

1988-2008 Presidential Elections
A comprehensive analysis of 274 unadjusted 1988-2008 state and 6 national presidential exit polls proved systemic election fraud. The Democrats led the recorded vote by 48-46%, but led the exit polls by a whopping 52-42%. The True Vote Model matched and therefore confirmed the exit polls.

The Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 52.6 million of 2004 voters (43%) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 37% were returning Gore voters. But this is impossible since Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore 5 million phantom Bush voters were required in order to match the recorded vote. Recall that Gore won the popular recorded vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-5 million True Votes). The exit pollsters switched 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders (of 13660 polled) to Bush.

The Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 60 million (46%) of the 131 million who voted in 2008 were returning Bush 2004 voters and just 49 million (37%) were returning Kerry voters. In other words, in order to match the 2008 recorded vote, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush 2004 voters than returning Kerry voters. But Bush won the bogus 2004 recorded vote by just 3 million! Kerry won the True Vote by close to 10 million. He won the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 6 million. Therefore Obama won the True Vote in 2008 by 22 million, not the 9.5 million recorded.

The pattern is clear. It’s not even close.

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/2014/USElections2014.pdf

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Wisconsin 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Wisconsin 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov.19, 2014
Update: Aug. 16, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

After 12 years of posting election fraud statistical models, I decided not to forecast the 2014 election or do a post-election True Vote analysis. Systemic Election Fraud was  proven beyond any doubt, so why bother? Nothing has changed, the media remains mute on the fraud and congress refuses to do anything about it.

I  had worked closely with Wisconsin election reform activists on the 2011 Supreme Court election, the state recalls and Walker recall.   When I was asked to look into the 2014 WI governor election, I felt like Al Pacino in Godfather III: Just when I thought I was out of it, they pulled me back in again. Since I decided to bypass 2014, I did not even know who was running against Walker.

The key to understanding how elections are rigged is to study the exit polls and cumulative vote shares.The pattern keeps repeating: exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. It’s a fact. The pollsters admit it, but claim it is to correct the errant polls.  The assumption is that the recorded vote count is pristine and there is no fraud. At least that is what the pollsters and pundits would like us to believe.

Unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later, so we are left with the adjusted polls (national, state, governor) for clues. In order to adjust the exit poll to match the recorded vote, the returning voter mix from the previous election and/or each candidate’s share of returning and new voters must be changed. All crosstabs must be adjusted. I have stated this often in posts as far back as 2004 as well as in my books. In turned out that the 2014 WI election was 2012 deja vu all over again.

To analyze the 2014 Wisconsin Governor race, I created 2014WIGov.  It contains the following worksheets (sheet names in quotes):
– 2014 National House Exit Poll (‘2014 NEP’)
– 2014 Wisconsin Gov. Exit Poll (‘WI Exit Poll’)
– 2014 Wisconsin County Vote vs. 2012 Recall Vote (“Counties’)
– 2014 Wisconsin Governor True Vote Model (‘True Vote’)

View the: 2014 Wisconsin Governor True Vote Model

The 2014 WI Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis  tracks cumulative vote shares for each county based on increasing unit/ward voting size. The odd pattern of increasing Walker vote shares in large Democratic counties is similar to the 2012 WI recall. This counter-intuitive trend is highly indicative of fraud. View the  2014 Wisconsin Governor Cumulative County/Ward Vote shares and graphs

2014 National Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
This sheet contains a selected set of cross tabs (demographics). The Gender demographic is within 0.1% of the recorded vote. The theoretical margin of error was approximately 2%. The probability of the 0.1% adjusted exit poll deviation from the recorded vote is close to zero – only because the pollsters forced the match. But that’s not news. It’s standard operating procedure -and obviously unscientific. It’s like a serial thief daring the police to stop him, but they don’t even though they have his fingerprints.

WI Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
Like virtually all exit polls, it was forced to match the bogus recorded vote by adjusting the number of returning voters to favor the GOP. Returning Walker voters comprised 50% of the 2014 vote total while Barrett voters at 35%. The 15% differential is much higher than Walker’s 7% recorded margin in 2012. But consider that Barrett likely won the 2012 True Vote by 6% – and a whopping 21% discrepancy in margin. Just as in every presidential exit poll, the returning voter percentages were implausible. How could there be a 15% excess of returning Walker 2012 voters over returning Barrett voters?

In the “How Voted in 2012” cross tab, vote shares are missing for Other (3%) and New Voters (DNV 11%). The result is a Walker landslide by 55.4-43.1%, a whopping 12.3% margin. But he had a bogus 52.9% recorded share. The two basic clues that the 2014 election was fixed are obvious from the adjusted exit poll:
1) The 2012 returning voter mix is highly implausible.
2) Vote shares for 14% of the 2014 electorate are not available.

The standard election fraud “tell” is that the returning voter mix has been adjusted to increase the Republican share. When the mix is changed to a feasible Barrett/Walker 45/41% mix, Burke is the winner by 52.3-47.3%

WISCONSIN 2014 EXIT POLL (forced to match recorded vote)
GENDER..........Pct Burke Walker
Male............49% 39.0% 60.0%
Female..........51% 54.0% 45.0%
Total..........100% 46.7% 52.4%
Recorded........... 47.1% 52.9%
Difference........ -0.46% -0.54%
VOTED IN 2012 RECALL (suspicious turnout in 2014 and 14% na)
2012……………….. Pct Burke Walker
Tom Barrett……..35% 96.0% 04.0%
Scott Walker…….50% 05.0% 94.0%
Other ………………3% 50.0% 50.0% (na, set to 50/50)
DNV ……………….11% 50.0% 50.0% (na, set to 50/50)
Recorded…………99% 43.1% 55.4%
TRUE VOTE
……………………..Pct Burke Walker
Tom Barrett…… 45% 96.0% 4.0% (set to plausible 45/41% returning voter mix)
Scott Walker……41% 05.0% 94.0%
Other……………..3% 50.0% 50.0%
DNV………………11% 52.0% 48.0% (adjust new voter shares)
TOTAL………….100% 52.5% 47.1%

TRUE VOTE MODEL

The model is based on 2012 returning voters and 2014 vote share percentages. In the Base Case scenario, Burke had 52.2%  and won by 107,000 votes.

1) Barrett had a 53% True Vote in the 2012 recall
2) 93% turnout of 2012 living voters in 2014
3) Burke had 92% of returning Barrett voters
4) Burke had 7% of returning Walker voters
5) Burke had 54% of new voters.

The Sensitivity analysis shows Burke’s total vote shares and margins for alternative scenarios of vote share and turnout of 2012 voters.

CUMULATIVE VOTE SHARES

Counties
In 2014, there was a significant 0.24 correlation between Walker’s  county votes and turnout (it was 0.28 in the 2012 recall). This measure indicates that as turnout increased, so did Walker’s vote share. But this is counter-intuitive; strong turnout always favors the Democrats. Burke’s total vote dropped by 61,500 (2.57%) from the 25% mark.

County size
Burke’s share fell by 4.8% in the largest 15 counties, but increased by 2.3% in the middle 15 and 0.67% in the 15 smallest. This is a strong indicator of fraud in the biggest counties.

Democratic strongholds
Burke’s share fell by 6.5% in counties in which she was leading the 25% vote mark. This is an indicator of fraud in Democratic strongholds.

Correlation
There was a -0.37 statistical correlation between the change in Burke’s county shares and county vote size. This is another indicator of fraud in the biggest counties (primarily Milwaukee).

Democratic Vote Share Trend - 15 counties
Election.....Votes..25%...50%..100% Change
Average.......1532 56.1% 53.8% 50.1% 5.9%
2008 Obama……..1853 62.4% 60.7% 57.1% 5.3%
2010 Feingold……1375 54.7% 52.5% 48.7% 6.0%
2010 Barrett……..1372 55.0% 51.9% 48.2% 6.8%
2012 Barrett……..1551 54.2% 52.1% 48.1% 6.1%
2014 Burke……….1511 53.0% 52.2% 48.5% 5.5%
Vote change…..Vote….25%…50%..75%..100%
Votes…………..-61.49 1,174 1,158 1,133 1,113
% Change…………….-2.57 -0.67 -1.07 -0.84
…………..Vote..25%..50%..75%..100%….Correl..% Change
Total……2,385 49.2 48.5 47.5 46.6.. -0.37… -2.6
Top 15…1,573 53.4 52.0 50.2 48.6.. -0.23… -4.8
Mid 15……242 41.0 41.2 41.6 43.1…..   0.01…  2.1
Low 15……..73 43.5 42.6 42.7 43.7….. 0.11…. 0.2
Dem>50% 935 67.3 65.2 62.7 60.8.. -0.35… -6.5

HISTORICAL PRESIDENTIAL EXIT POLLS

A comprehensive analysis of 274 unadjusted 1988-2008 state and 6 national presidential exit polls proved systemic election fraud. The Democrats led the recorded vote by 48-46%, but led the exit polls by a whopping 52-42%. The True Vote Model matched and therefore confirmed the exit polls.

The Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 52.6 million of 2004 voters (43%) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 37% were returning Gore voters. But this is impossible since Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore 5 million phantom Bush voters were required in order to match the recorded vote. Recall that Gore won the popular recorded vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-5 million True Votes). The exit pollsters switched 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders (of 13660 polled) to Bush.

The Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 60 million (46%) of the 131 million who voted in 2008 were returning Bush 2004 voters and just 49 million (37%) were returning Kerry voters. In other words, in order to match the 2008 recorded vote, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush 2004 voters than returning Kerry voters. But Bush won the bogus 2004 recorded vote by just 3 million! Kerry won the True Vote by close to 10 million. He won the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 6 million. Therefore Obama won the True Vote in 2008 by 22 million, not the 9.5 million recorded.

The pattern is clear. It’s not even close.

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/2014/USElections2014.pdf

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis