RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?

Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?

Richard Charnin
May 28, 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

Democratic Primaries spread sheet

The 3 million Clinton vote margin is repeated endlessly by the media. This analysis shows that the number is grossly inflated. Sanders may very well be leading the popular vote and corresponding delegate count.

This is why Sanders did much better than his recorded vote:

– Actual votes in caucus states are not included in the count – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Exit polls indicated voting machines were hacked – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Voter rolls were manipulated – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Long lines and reduced polling stations reduced voter turnout – to the benefit of Clinton.

Sanders leads by approximately 780,000 votes (51.5-48.5%), assuming a) caucus votes are included, b) unadjusted exit polls represent the true vote, c) 10% of Sanders voters were disenfranchised and d) 5% of Clinton’s votes were fraudulent early/absentee ballots. 

Sanders won the caucuses easily. The largest were MN, WA, CO. Caucus votes were approximated by applying the caucus vote shares to the popular vote (the state population is proportional to the electoral vote).

Votes for the primaries were calculated based on late exit polls. Sanders did approximately 4% better in the polls than in his recorded share. 

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of  26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 190.000. His share decline to the vote exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries, a 1 in 77 billion probability.

Exit polls and caucuses indicate that Sanders has won 30 of 44 states and leads the electoral vote by  259-193. Clinton’s margin is reduced from 3 million to 1.3 million based on actual caucus votes and unadjusted exit polls.

The National Election Pool discontinued exit polls after the Indiana primary.

View the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1476097125

Recorded Vote (000)

Clinton Sanders Margin Total Clinton Sanders Margin
12,985 9,981 3,004 22,966 56.5% 43.5% 13.0%

Exit Poll/ actual caucus votes

Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
12,864 11,816 1,048 52.1% 47.9% 4.2%

Other adjustments

We need to include an estimate that 10% of Sanders voters were disenfranchised due to long lines, reduced polling stations, switched/dropped party registrations, etc. NY and AZ are prime examples. And we need to deduct an estimated 5% of Clinton’s votes due to early/absentee ballot stuffing.

  Sanders   Clinton   Margin
 Vote(000) Recorded 9,981 43.5% 12,985 56.5% -3,004
Exit Poll +Caucus  Adjusted  11,816 47.9% 12,864 52.1% -1,048
Other: Reg switch/flip+ Absentee ballots  Final Adjusted 12,998 (+10%) 51.5% 12,221   (-5%) 48.5% 777

 

 

 

 

 
5 Comments

Posted by on May 28, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Sanders vs.Clinton vs. Trump

Richard Charnin
May 23, 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

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Sanders vs.Clinton vs. Trump

The Election Model estimates plausible state vote shares and calculates the electoral vote assuming a three-way race between Clinton, Sanders and Trump. It is not a forecast. It is meant to illustrate a possible scenario given certain assumptions of Party-Id and corresponding vote shares.

The model is flexible so that one easily change input vote shares and the Party-ID split. State vote shares and electoral votes are automatically calculated.

The model projects Bernie Sanders as the winner with 308 electoral votes assuming he wins 50% of Independents and 40% of Democrats. And of course, we assume a fair election and Sanders is on the ballot in all the states.

In 2014, the National Party ID split was: 41% Democrat,35% Republican and 24% Independent. Current surveys indicate that the current split is 29D-21R-50I – a sharp increase in self-identified Independents.

Methodology
1-State Party-ID is adjusted proportionate to the change in National Party ID from 2014.
For example, Illinois 2014 Party-ID (47D-35R-18I) was adjusted to 40.6D-24.8R-34.6I.
2-The input National Party-ID vote shares are applied to each state’s  Party-ID split.
3-The total Electoral vote is calculated.

Case I: Assumptions
National Party ID: 35D-25R-40I (conservative)
National vote shares:
Democrats: Sanders 40%; Clinton 50%; Trump 10%
Republicans: Sanders 5%; Clinton 10%; Trump 85%
Independents: Sanders 50%; Clinton 30%; Trump 20%

Sanders defeats Trump by 35.3-32.8%, a 4.2 million margin.
He wins the electoral vote by 308-219 EV

CASE I  Party ID Sanders Clinton Trump
Dem 35% 40% 50% 10%
Rep 25% 5% 10% 85%
Ind 40% 50% 30% 20%
Total 100% 35.25% 32.00% 32.75%
Electoral Vote 538 308 11  219

Case II: Assumptions 
National Party-ID: Dem 29D- 21R-50I.
National vote shares:
Democrats: Sanders 40%; Clinton 50%; Trump 10%
Republicans: Sanders 5%; Clinton 5%; Trump 90%
Independents: Sanders 50%; Clinton 25%; Trump 25%

Sanders defeats Trump by 37.7-34.3%, a 4.3 million margin.
He wins the electoral vote by 329-209.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 
Sanders’ vote share over a range of assumptions. He wins 10 of 12 scenarios.

2016 Estimated  
CASE II Party ID Sanders Clinton Trump
Dem 29% 40% 50% 10%
Rep 21% 5% 5% 90%
Ind 50% 50% 25% 25%
Total 100% 37.65% 28.05% 34.30%
Electoral vote 538   329 209 
Sanders% Dem  
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%  50.0%
Sanders % Ind Sanders
55% 38.7% 40.2% 41.6%  43.1%
50% 36.2% 37.7% 39.1%  40.6%
45% 33.7% 35.2% 36.6%  38.1%
Trump 
55% 33.3% 31.8% 30.4%  28.9%
50% 35.8% 34.3% 32.9%  31.4%
45% 38.3% 36.8% 35.4%  33.9%
Sanders Margin
55% 5.5% 8.4% 11.3%  14.2%
50% 0.5% 3.4% 6.3%  9.2%
45% -4.6% -1.7% 1.3%  4.2%
Sanders Margin (000)
55% 7,036 10,780 14,524  18,268
50% 581 4,325 8,069  11,813
45% -5,874 -2,130 1,614  5.358
 
13 Comments

Posted by on May 23, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls; Kentucky and Oregon recap

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls, Kentucky and Oregon recap

Richard Charnin
May 19, 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

The networks cancelled plans for exit polls for the remaining presidential primaries. Forget about the California and New Jersey primaries. Hell, they aren’t important.

  • 11 of 26 exit polls exceeded the margin of error for Sanders 
  • The probability is 1 in 76.8 billion = 1- binomdist (10,26,.025,true)
  • 24 of 26 exit polls shifted to Clinton in the vote 
  • The probability  is 1 in 190,000 = 1- binomdist(23,26,0.5, true)

The average exit poll margin of error for the 26 primaries was 3.52%. The MoE includes a 30% exit poll cluster factor (0.81) which is added to the theoretical 2.71% MoE. View a statistical comparison of exit poll discrepancies between the stolen 2004 presidential election and the 2016 Democratic Primaries.

Cancelling the exit polls is nothing new.  Just before the 2012 presidential election, the National Election Pool announced that 19 state exit polls would be cancelled. Obama was headed for another landslide, although the pre-election polls said it was a close race.  Why did the networks cancel exit polls in 19 states?

Unadjusted state exit poll data are a major component in calculating exit poll discrepancies. Having data for just 31 states made it impossible to compare the total weighted average of the state polls to the official recorded share. The  decision  was a blow to Election Integrity.

In six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by a 52-42%. The recorded margin was just 48-46%.

THE FRAUDULENT KENTUCKY PRIMARY

CLINTON won by 2000 out of  413,000 votes: 46.8-46.3%

Lundergan Grimes, the chief Elections officer for the state of Kentucky, told voters that electing Hillary Clinton is more important than doing her job.

Card readers malfunctioned and votes were fully erased from Pike County, Kentucky. This gave Clinton the lead. At one point, all Pike County data represented  all zeroes in the vote totals. Later, 20 percent of the total votes were missing and Clinton gained the lead.

WKYT reported that the AP had actually “erased all votes from Pike County”.  The numbers pushed Clinton back up by over 4,000. The Pike County Clerk’s Office said that there was an issue with one of their card readers, and it ended up causing them to have a delay in posting their numbers.

Election fraud was  reported in 31 counties. There were at least 76 calls to the hotline of the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Andy Beshear. According to Kentucky news station WSAZ, ‘Complaints included procedural and legal questions, voter assistance, [issues with] voting machines, voter identification, residency, election officials, electioneering, poll disruption and vote buying.’

CUMULATIVE VOTE SHARES- JEFFERSON COUNTY

As is virtually always the case, the establishment candidate (usually a Republican) gains cumulative precinct vote shares in the largest (usually Democratic) counties. It  is counter-intuitive. Jefferson is the largest county in KY and Clinton is the establishment candidate. Her cumulative vote share increased by 7.4% (55.9% to 63.3%) after 85% of smaller precincts were counted! The probability P of this vote spike occurring by chance is essentially ZERO: 

P =1 in 6.7 billion if we assume a 2% MoE in a poll of 90,000 respondents
P= 1.49E-10= normdist (0.559,0.633,0.02/1.96,false) .

 

 

OREGON

This was a closed primary.  Sanders won the election by 56-44%. Sanders had 53% of the first tier of votes at the 60% mark. He had 56% at the 96% mark. Therefore he had 67% of the 36% late votes. The calculation is basic algebra: X = 67.2% = (0.56-0.53*0.6)/0.36.

In 2014, the voter registration mix was Dem 37.8-Rep 29.9- Ind 32.3. There is no question but that the percentage of Independents is higher today.  Assuming Independents could have voted in the primary, Sanders would have won by approximately 65-35% which agrees with the 67% calculated above.

Registration Pct Adjusted Sanders Clinton
Dem (recorded) 37.8% 53.9% 56.0% 44.0%
Ind 32.3% 46.1% 75.0% 25.0%
Adjusted share 70.1% 100.0% 64.8% 35.2%

Oregon has an excellent track record of fair elections.  Here is the historical evidence.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY EXIT POLLS

Margin of error, Sanders 2-party  Recorded Vote, Exit Poll, Exit Poll – Recorded vote, Probability

Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit-Vote Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ            (Yavapai Cty) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%

 

 
37 Comments

Posted by on May 19, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

2004 Stolen presidential election vs. 2016 Democratic primaries

2004 Presidential election vs. 2016 Democratic Primaries

Richard Charnin
May 15, 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

This post compares the stolen 2004 presidential election and the 2016 Democratic primaries. There were 50 states exit polled in 2004  and 26 primaries polled in 2016 as of May 14. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%, a 3 million vote margin. Kerry won the National Exit Poll by 51.7-47.0%, a 6 million margin.

The following states flipped from Kerry in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA. Kerry needed FL or OH to win.

In 2004, the average exit poll margin of error was 3.43%
In 2016, the average exit poll margin of error is 3.52%

In 2004, 23 of 50 exit polls (46%) exceeded the margin of error .
In 2016, 12  of 26  (46%) exceeded the margin of error.

In 2004, 22  of 50 (44%) exceeded the margin of error for Kerry.
In 2016, 11 of 26  (42%)  exceeded the MoE for Sanders. The probability is 1 in 76.8 billion

In 2004, 42 of 50  (84%) shifted to Bush in the vote.  The probability is 1 in 1.7 million.
In 2016, 24 of 26  (92%) shifted to Clinton in the vote. The probability  is 1 in 190,000.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Primaries: Hillary wins the lottery

Richard Charnin
May 12, 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

Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share has exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: AL AZ GA MA NY OH MS SC TX WI WV. The probability P that at least 11 exit polls would exceed the MoE is calculated using the Binomial distribution.

P = 1 in 76.8 BILLION = 1-BINOMDIST(10,26,0.025,true)

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? This is an updated analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

The Margin of Error  (MoE) is based on the number of respondents and  the vote shares:
MoE =1.3*1.96*sqrt (EP*(1-EP)/N),   where EP is the 2-party exit poll share, N is the number of respondents, 1.3 is the exit poll cluster factor adjustment. There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE.

The probability of fraud is calculated using the Normal distribution The probability is based on the difference (DIFF) between the exit poll share (EP) and recorded share (RS) less the MoE. If DIFF=MoE, the probability is 97.5%.

P = normdist (EP, RS, MoE/1.96,true)

West Virginia

The results strongly suggest election fraud.  There were 734 respondents in the unadjusted exit poll and 763 in the adjusted final (forced to match the recorded vote). How could Sanders vote share decline by 6% with just 29 additional respondents? How could Other candidates vote share change by 7.5%?

Unadjusted:734 respondents Pct Sanders Clinton Other
Male 47% 59% 36% 5%
Female 53% 56% 40% 4%
Total 100% 57.4% 38.1% 4.5%
2-party  100% 60.1% 39.9%
Adjusted: 763 Forced to match recorded vote
Male 47% 53% 35% 12%
Female 53% 50% 38% 12%
Total 100% 51.4% 36.6% 12.0%
2-party  100% 58.4% 41.6%

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll      
Unadjusted -1323 Pct Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted Forced to match the recorded vote
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

Summary Table

Exit poll margin of error, Sanders recorded vote share, Sanders exit poll,  difference between the exit poll and recorded vote and the estimated probability of fraud. Primaries in which the exit poll exceeded the recorded vote by at least the margin of error (at least 97.5% probability of fraud) are shown in bold.

Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit-Vote Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ (Yavapai) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
 
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%

 

 
27 Comments

Posted by on May 12, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tim Robbins: We Need to Fix Our Broken Election System

Richard Charnin
May 5, 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

Tim Robbins, a fine actor and dedicated progressive activist, wrote this article in the Huffington Post. We need more of his kind.

“Going into Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Indiana, polls showed Bernie Sanders trailing Hillary Clinton by around 7 percent. The final tally had Sanders up by 6 percent, a 13 point difference that seems to follow a pattern of polling discrepancies in this primary process that are quite troubling. A couple of weeks ago I shared a post containing statistics compiled from CNN and the New York Times figures comparing Democratic Party primary exit polls and final election results. The numbers show a significant discrepancy between the two, favoring Hillary Clinton in all but one of the primaries by an average of 9.02 percent and in the New York primary by 16 percent. The post carried an incendiary headline, suggesting election fraud, which caused quite a ruckus. I’m glad it did. We need to have this discussion.

This posting led to the predictable onslaught of internet trolls calling me crazy, conspiracy theorist, etc., all the talking points that are being masterminded by the sleaze-meisters over at David Brock’s Correct the Record, a Hillary Clinton Super PAC. The post also brought criticism from the mainstream media, but that is no surprise to me. I’ve been there before. In the 2002-3 campaign to stop the Iraq war, others and I were characterized as crazy, conspiracy theorists, etc., as mainstream media shamefully abdicated its role in a functioning democracy by becoming a propaganda arm for Bush and Co. Yes. The New York Times did that, and the Washington Post and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, PBS, NPR etc. We, the millions who across the world were saying no, who were aware of the lies that Bush and Co. were telling, were ignored by the mainstream media, marginalized as radicals and told by pundits to shut our unpatriotic mouths.

So when that happened to me again two weeks ago, often by the same organizations that had marginalized me for my opposition to the war in 2002-3, I recognized the familiarity of it all. Could my post have touched a nerve? It certainly did with Joshua Holland, who wrote in Raw Story that I was involved with a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism.” He then goes on to refute the claims of election fraud with seemingly empirical statistical evidence. Now, I am not a mathematician. But Richard Charnin is. He has two master’s degrees in applied mathematics and has followed presidential elections since 1952. He took issue with Mr. Holland’s article. I defer to his expertise: “Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland.”

Read the rest of the article here. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

 

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

Inline image

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis

Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis

Richard Charnin
May 5, 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
Election Fraud Slides

This is an analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries.

The probability is a function of the 2-party exit poll share, 2-party recorded vote share and the margin of error  (MoE). An exit poll cluster effect (30%) is added to the MoE formula: 

MoE =1.3*1.96*sqrt (EP*(1-EP)/N),
where EP is the 2-party exit poll share, N is the number of respondents.

There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE.
Ten (n) of the N= 25 polls exceeded the margin of error.The probability is calculated using the Binomial distribution.  P = 1 in 4.5 Billion = BINOMDIST(9,25,.025,true))

The probability of fraud is calculated using the Normal distribution. The probability  is based on the difference (DIFF)  between the exit poll share (EP) and the recorded share (RS) less the MoE. If DIFF-MoE = 0, the probability is 97.5%.
Prob = normdist (EP, RS, MoE/1.96,true)

The total primaries average probability of  fraud is 97.4%.  The 3.5% average DIFF is equal to the  average MoE.

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

Note the WI 63.6% exit poll in my calculation differs from the 56.0% exit poll result provided by CNN. A screenshot indicated that Sanders had a 68% share of white voters. His share of whites was reduced to 59% in the adjusted exit poll. In addition, according to the 2014 census, whites comprised 92.4% of registered WI voters The CNN adjusted poll indicated that 83% were whites. I used a conservative 88% in the calculation.

Race Percent Sanders Clinton
White 88.0% 68.0% 32.0%
Non-white 12.0% 31.0% 69.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 63.6% 36.4%

Sanders 2-party  Recorded Vote, Exit Poll shares. Diff = Exit Poll – Recorded vote

State MoE Recorded Exit Poll Diff – MoE Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 2.2% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% -1.7% 87.3%
AZ 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 18.2% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% -2.0% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% -1.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 2.1% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% -1.4% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% -0.5% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 0.5% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% -4.0% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% -0.9% 92.1%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% -2.4% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 1.3% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% -2.1% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -3.7% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 2.4% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 1.9% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -9.1% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% -2.0% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 2.1% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% -1.4% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 0.7% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% -1.3% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% -2.1% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 3.9% 100.0%
Average 3.48% 42.43% 45.89% -0.02% 97.42%
 
 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,022 other followers