RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Quick Mortality Probability Calculator

Richard Charnin
May 20, 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

What is the probability that in a random group of N individuals, n would die unnaturally (homicide, suicide, accident) or strictly by homicide over T years?

You can run this spreadsheet calculator for any combination of N, n and T. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1htajNqLQrV9M4jmwWUN7MweelfN2ZCwr8KB-YeO7r10/edit#gid=0

Example:
Given: 2016 homicide rate = R = 0.00005
Assumptions: N=5000 individuals, n =9 homicides, T=1 year (2016)
Expected homicides = E = N*R*T= 0.25 = 5000*0.00005*1

Probability function = poisson (n, E, false)
Probability = 8.19E-12 or 1 in 122,145,247,909

Conclusion:  The fact that 9 of 5000 were murdered in the same year cannot just be a 1 in 122 BILLION coincidence.

JFK WITNESS DEATHS
– In 1964-78, 78 of 122 suspicious deaths were officially ruled unnatural among an estimated 1500 JFK-related material witnesses.
– Of the 78,  34 were ruled homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides and 4 unknown. Probability: 2.7E-31

– Just 12 accidents and 3 suicides were expected statistically, therefore approximately 60 of the 78 unnatural deaths were actually homicides. Assuming 5,000 witnesses, Probability: 1.5E-38

– Of the 44 “natural” deaths (heart attacks, sudden cancers, other), approximately 25-30 were actually homicides based on the total  number of expected deaths.
– Therefore, there were 85-90 homicides among the 122 suspicious deaths – compared to the 34 officially ruled. For 10,000 witnesses, Probability: 5.5E-47

<https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/executive-action-jfk-witness-deaths-and-the-london-times-actuary/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FmXudDf6pqisxq_mepIC6iuG47RkDskPDWzQ9L7Lykw/edit#gid=3

Simkin JFK Index of 656 key individuals: 44 homicides, Probability = 4.7 E-60 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FmXudDf6pqisxq_mepIC6iuG47RkDskPDWzQ9L7Lykw/edit#gid=81

Years: 15
Annual Homicide rate: 0.00008

Witnesses…….1500 5000 10000 656
Homicides………34 60 90 44
Expected…….. 1.8 6.0 12.0 0.8

Probability….2.7E-31 1.5E-38 5.5E-47 4.7E-60

 
2 Comments

Posted by on May 20, 2017 in JFK, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Syrian Sarin Gas False Flag: Selected Readings

Richard Charnin
April 16, 2017

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

  • MIT PROFESSOR: FRAUDULENT NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON SYRIAN GAS ATTACK
    Theodore A. Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT.  His main expertise is ballistic missiles. He has a substantial background in air dispersal, including how toxic plumes move in the air. Postol has taught courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological threats – at MIT.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-15/video-tampering-evidence-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

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

In 2013, AFTER Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was accused of using sarin gas against his own countrymen, Trump tweeted, “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.” (August 29) And, “Obama’s war in Syria has the potential to widen into a worldwide conflict.” (September 5) And, “Forget Syria and make America great again.” (September 11) And, again, “We should . . . stay out of Syria and other countries that hate us, rebuild our own country and make it strong and great again–USA!” (September 12)
http://www.rense.com/general96/trumpneowarmg.html

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

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/06/nyt-retreats-on-2013-syria-sarin-claims/

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

http://projectcensored.org/syria-guilty-new-evidence-ghouta-sarin-gas-attack/

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

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

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-approved-delivering-libyas-sarin-gas-to-syrian-rebels-seymour-hersh/5522647     

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

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

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/ron-paul-zero-chance-assad-behind-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-likely-false-flag

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

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

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/

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

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

    • Dr. Eowyn: Three reasons why the latest Syrian chemical attack attributed to Assad is a false flag

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2017/04/07/3-reasons-why-the-latest-syrian-chemical-attack-was-a-false-flag/ Posted on by | 32 Comments

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

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

http://alexanderhiggins.com/bbc-news-caught-staging-fake-news-chemical-attack-syria/

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

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

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/top-former-u-s-military-intelligence-officials.html

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

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 9, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Pre-election and National Exit Poll Categories vs. the True Vote

Richard Charnin
Jan. 13, 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

This spreadsheet displays the average of nine national pre-election polls which were used as a basis for the Election Model forecast. Also included are National Exit poll categories with adjustments made to match the  estimated 48-45% Trump true margin (4 million votes). Therefore, he probably had at least 350 electoral votes, not the 306 reported. 

 Clinton won the nine pre-election polls by  47.5-46.0%.  Party-ID was 39D-32R-29I As the de-facto challenger, Trump won an estimated 65% of late undecided voters. He won Independents in the nine polls by  43.6-33.8%.  

Using the Gallup voter affiliation survey (32D-28R-40I),  Trump won the nine-poll average by 47.5-45.1%. 

Clinton won the Final National Exit Poll by 47.7-46.2%,  which closely matched the recorded vote shares. Party-ID was 36D-33R-31I 

Using Gallup and NEP vote share adjustments, Trump matched the nine-poll average by 48.2-45.3%.

All National Exit Poll crosstab categories were forced to match the recorded vote. Each crosstabs vote shares and weights  were adjusted to match the previously calculated True Vote.  The adjustments are not unique; other estimates could achieve a match.

Key points:
1. Pre-election polls over-weighted Democrats and underweighted Independents.
2. Exit polls over-weighted Democrats and underweighted Independents.
3. The Gallup voter affiliation party-id is the only such survey of the electorate.
4. All National Exit Poll categories are adjusted to match the recorded vote.
5. Trump won the True vote by an estimated 48-45%, a 4 million vote margin.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 13, 2017 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: ,

ANOTHER PRE-ELECTION AND EXIT POLL ANOMALY: WHEN DID VOTERS DECIDE WHO TO VOTE FOR?

Richard Charnin
Jan. 8, 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

According to Real Clear Politics, 45.4% of those polled after Oct. 1 said they would vote for Clinton and 40.7% for Trump. Of those polled before Oct. 1, 42.4% said they would vote for Clinton and 39.2% for Trump – a net 1.5% discrepancy.

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

In the 28 states that were exit polled (and forced to match the recorded vote) 51% of respondents who decided after Oct. 1 voted for Trump and 41% for Clinton. Of those who decided before Oct. 1, Clinton led by 52-44%, an 18% flip in vote margin.

The momentum was clearly in favor of Trump. So how do you explain the large difference in margins between the pre-election polls vs. the exit polls?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1036252757

Decided after Oct.1     Decided Before Oct. 1  
    Clinton Trump Margin Clinton Trump Margin
  Real Clear Politics 45.4% 40.7% -4.7% 42.4% 39.2% -3.2%
  National Exit Poll 40% 48% 8% 51% 45% -6%
  Decided after Oct.1   Decided before Oct 1  
  Clinton Trump Margin Clinton Trump Margin
Avg 25.6% 38.1% 50.5% 12.4% 49.4% 37.0% -12.4%
Wtd 25.6% 40.7% 50.8% 10.0% 52.3% 44.1% -8.2%
OH 25% 37% 54% 17% 47% 50% 3%
NC 25% 33% 57% 24% 51% 47% -4%
NJ 25% 50% 41% -9% 55% 43% -12%
PA 24% 43% 49% 6% 47% 51% 4%
MI 26% 37% 52% 15% 50% 47% -3%
MO 29% 36% 52% 16% 38% 59% 21%
IA 26% 35% 53% 18% 47% 47% 0%
FL 26% 43% 50% 7% 49% 49% 0%
WI 14% 30% 59% 29% 49% 47% -2%
VA 23% 42% 48% 6% 52% 44% -8%
NV 11% 45% 40% -5% 49% 44% -5%
NH 29% 42% 50% 8% 51% 45% -6%
MN 29% 33% 51% 18% 51% 41% -10%
ME 31% 35% 51% 16% 51% 43% -8%
CO 22% 37% 48% 11% 52% 42% -10%
TX 24% 46% 47% 1% 44% 51% 7%
IL 30% 34% 71% 37% 66% 32% -34%
CA 29% 51% 42% -9% 67% 29% -38%
NY 26% 38% 60% 22% 67% 31% -36%
GA 20% 47% 55% 8% 45% 53% 8%
AZ 25% 40% 48% 8% 48% 48% 0%
WA 22% 46% 41% -5% 57% 38% -19%
UT 44% 17% 39% 22% 36% 52% 16%
SC 26% 39% 50% 11% 42% 56% 14%
KY 28% 27% 63% 36% 31% 67% 36%
OR 20% 32% 48% 16% 54% 38% -16%
NM 28% 37% 41% 4% 52% 40% -12%
IN 29% 34% 53% 19% 35% 61% 26%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 8, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

2016 Election Scenario Analysis

Richard Charnin
Nov. 23, 2016

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 Exit Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

This is an analysis of four election scenarios. 

1. Gallup Party-ID and True Vote Model (TVM) vote shares
2. Gallup Party-ID and National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares
3. NEP Party-ID and NEP vote shares
4. NEP Party-ID and TVM vote shares

It is a FACT: the Reported vote is NEVER equal to the True Vote. The pundits always brainwash the public into assuming that the Reported vote represents True voter intent. 

The National Exit Poll is always forced to match the Reported vote  (view Scenario 3).
NEP Party-ID is 36D-33R-31I.
Clinton leads Trump by 2.03 million votes: 47.7-46.2%.
Others (including Johnson and Stein) have just 6.1% combined. Stein has 1%.

The True Vote Model (Scenario 1) uses Gallup Party-ID: 40I-32D-28R.
Trump leads Clinton by 2.18 million votes: 45.7-44.0%.  How many of the Other 10.3% voted for Jill Stein? Surely more than 1%. Probably close to 5%.

It is clear that the third party vote is a key factor. Jill Stein had an implausibly low 1% share. Where did her votes go?  Compare Trump’s 2.18 million True Vote margin in Scenario 1, in which third parties had 10.3%, to his negative margins in scenarios 2 and 3 where third parties had 6-7%. The differential  indicates that Stein did better than 1%. Her votes were stolen.

Exit poll discrepancies: http://tdmsresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-Election-Table_Nov-17.-2016.jpg

 True Vote Sensitivity Analysis: Calculate Trump’s vote margins over a range of his shares of Republicans and Independents.

 1. Gallup/TVM  Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 89% 9% 2%
Rep 28% 7% 90% 3%
Ind 40% 34% 44% 22%
TVM Total 100% 44.0% 45.7% 10.3%
Votes (mil) 133.26 58.69 60.87 13.70
2. Gallup/NEP   Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 89% 8% 3%
Rep 28% 8% 88% 4%
Ind 40% 42% 46% 12%
Total 100% 47.5% 45.6% 6.9%
Votes (mil) 133.26 63.33 60.77 9.17
3. NEP/NEP Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89% 8% 3%
Rep 33% 8% 88% 4%
Ind 31% 42% 46% 12%
Total 100% 47.7% 46.2% 6.1%
Votes (mil) 133.26 63.57 61.54 8.16
4. NEP/TVM Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89% 9% 2%
Rep 33% 7% 90% 3%
Ind 31% 34% 44% 22%
Total 100% 44.9% 46.6% 8.5%
Votes (mil) 133.26 59.82 62.07 11.37

True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis

Scenario 1 Trump % Rep
Trump 85.0% 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 93.0%
% Ind Trump
48% 46.2% 46.7% 47.3% 47.8% 48.4%
44% 44.6% 45.1% 45.7% 46.2% 46.8%
40% 43.0% 43.5% 44.1% 44.6% 45.2%
Clinton
48% 43.6% 43.0% 42.4% 41.9% 41.3%
44% 45.2% 44.6% 44.0% 43.5% 42.9%
40% 46.8% 46.2% 45.6% 45.1% 44.5%
 Share Margin
48% 2.6% 3.7% 4.8% 6.0% 7.1%
44% -0.6% 0.5% 1.6% 2.8% 3.9%
40% -3.8% -2.7% -1.6% -0.4% 0.7%
 Vote (000)  Margin 
48% 3.5 5.0 6.4 7.9 9.4
44% -0.8 0.7 2.2 3.7 5.2
40% -5.1 -3.6 -2.1 -0.6 0.9

Summary Comparison (based on Party-ID)

Unadjusted Exit Poll   Reported Vote   True Vote  
Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 48.4% 45.8% 46.1% 49.6% 44.6% 48.4%
Diff   -2.6%   3.5%   3.9%
OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 43.9% 51.4%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 45.9% 46.6%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 44.6% 46.4%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.8% 45.8%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.7% 45.3% 47.8%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 41.5% 51.7%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 41.1% 50.6%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.9% 47.7%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 48.2% 45.2%
Share of  Indep-endents       
Unadjusted Exit Poll   Reported Vote   True Vote  
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 47.3% 40.3% 39.2% 53.1% 36.1% 50.2%
Diff   -7.0%   13.9%   14.1%
OH 50.0% 34.0% 38.0% 52.0% 38.0% 52.0%
NC 44.0% 44.0% 38.5% 56.0% 35.0% 49.0%
NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 36.0% 52.0%
PA 50.0% 43.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 53.0%
MI 32.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.3% 45.0% 56.3%
MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 39.0% 45.0%
IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 51.0%
FL 48.0% 43.0% 48.0% 50.5% 32.0% 53.0%
WI 48.0% 37.0% 43.0% 46.0% 43.0% 46.0%
 
23 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Implausible: the WI Unadjusted Exit Poll

Richard Charnin
Nov. 16, 2016

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

Trump won four key battleground states (FL, NC, PA, WI). Unadjusted exit polls indicate that Clinton won all four and had 302 EV. But statistical analysis indicates Trump very likely won the four states.

View the summary tables for 9 Battleground states below.

Clinton won the WI unadjusted exit poll  by 48.2-44.3%
Trump won the reported vote (party-ID) by 47.9-46.9%.
Trump won the reported vote (gender) by 48.4-46.6%.
The  CNN adjusted exit poll calculation did not exactly match the reported vote.

WI Reported Vote (CNN)
Trump wins: 47.9-46.9% (27,000 vote margin)
Calculated: Trump wins: 48.1-46.1%
Trump won Independents: 46-43%
Party ID: 35D- 34R- 30I

WI Unadjusted exit poll
Clinton wins: 48.2-44.3% (118,000 vote margin)
Clinton won Independents: 48-37%  (implausible)
Party ID: 35D- 34R- 30I

WI True Vote Model 
Trump wins 48.2-45.2% (45,000 vote margin)
Trump wins Independents: 46-43%
Party ID: 33.9D -32.6R -33.5I (derived from Gallup)

CNN National Exit Poll (matched to the recorded vote)
Clinton wins 47.8-47.4%
Trump won Independents: 48-42%
National Party ID: 37D- 33R- 30I

True Vote Model
Gallup Party-ID:  32D- 28R- 40I (8% Party ID  advantage to Independents)
Before Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA)
Trump wins the popular vote: 44.4-42.9% (1.6 million vote margin)
Trump wins the recorded Electoral vote: 306-232

True Vote: After Undecided Voter Allocation
Trump wins  48.5%-44.3% (5 million vote margin)
Trump wins the  Electoral Vote: 351-187

Unadjusted Exit Polls: http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

SUMMARY COMPARISON (based on Party-ID)

Unadj   Reported   True Vote  
Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 48.39% 45.80% 46.14% 49.65% 44.57% 48.45%
Diff   -2.59%   3.51%   3.88%
OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 43.9% 51.4%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 45.9% 46.6%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 44.6% 46.4%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.8% 45.8%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.7% 45.3% 47.8%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 41.5% 51.7%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 41.1% 50.6%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.9% 47.7%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 48.2% 45.2%
         
% Share of Ind  Unadj   Reported   True Vote  
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 47.33% 40.30% 39.17% 53.09% 36.11% 50.22%
Diff   -7.03%   13.92%   14.11%
OH 50.0% 34.0% 38.0% 52.0% 38.0% 52.0%
NC 44.0% 44.0% 38.5% 56.0% 35.0% 49.0%
NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 36.0% 52.0%
PA 50.0% 43.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 53.0%
MI 32.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.3% 45.0% 56.3%
MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 39.0% 45.0%
IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 51.0%
FL 48.0% 43.0% 48.0% 50.5% 32.0% 53.0%
WI 48.0% 37.0% 43.0% 46.0% 43.0% 46.0%

WISCONSIN

Unadj EP Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein Other
Dem 35% 91% 7% 1% 1% 0%
Rep 35% 6% 90% 3% 0% 1%
Ind 30% 48% 37% 6% 2% 7%
Calc 100% 48.4% 45.1% 3.2% 1.0% 2%
Unadj 100% 48.2% 44.3% 2.0% 1.3% 4%
Votes (000) 3,014 1,453 1,335 60 39 127
Margin -118 -3.9%
Reported Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein Other
Dem 35% 91% 7% 1% 1% 0%
Rep 35% 6% 90% 3% 0% 1%
Ind 30% 43% 46% 6% 2% 3%
Calc 100% 46.9% 47.8% 3.2% 1.0% 1%
Reported 100% 46.9% 47.9% 2.2% 0.7% 2.3%
Votes (000) 3,014 1,380 1,404 106 31 93
Margin 24 0.93%
True Vote Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein Other
Dem 33.9% 91% 7% 1% 1% 0%
Rep 32.6% 6% 90% 3% 0% 1%
Ind 33.5% 43% 46% 6% 2% 2%
TVM bef UVA 95.2% 42.7% 45.7% 4.3% 2.3%
True Vote 100.0% 45.2% 48.2% 4.3% 2.3%
Votes (000) 3,014 1,361 1,452 131 70
Margin 90 3.0%

2016-presidential-election-table_nov-10-2016

 
11 Comments

Posted by on November 16, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Implausible: the NJ Unadjusted Exit Poll

Richard Charnin
Nov. 13, 2016

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

Are we to believe the NJ exit poll?
Clinton won the poll by 59.8-35.8%, an 880,000 vote margin. 
Are we to believe she had 67% of Independents compared to 28% for Trump?

She won the recorded vote with 55.0-41.8%.
But the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote. 
There is always a fraud factor.
The True Vote Model estimates Clinton won NJ by 50.7-46.4%

JILL STEIN HAD JUST 1%. WHERE DID HER VOTES GO?

CNN National Exit Poll (matched to the recorded vote)
Clinton wins 47.8-47.4%
Trump won Independents: 48-42%
CNN National Party ID: 37D- 33R- 30I 
Gallup party affiliation: 32D-28R-40I 

NJ Recorded Vote (CNN)
Clinton wins: 55.0-41.8% (486,000 vote margin)
Party ID: 43D- 27R- 30I 
Clinton won Independents: 51-38%

NJ Unadjusted exit poll
Clinton wins: 59.8-35.8% (879,000 vote margin)
Party ID: 43D- 27R- 30I
Clinton won Independents: 67-28% (implausible)

NJ True Vote Model
Clinton wins 50.7-46.4% (157,000 vote margin)
Party ID: 25.8D -15.7R -58.5I 
Trump wins Independents: 52-46%

National True Vote Model
Gallup Party-ID:  32D- 28R- 40I 

Before Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA)
Trump wins the popular vote: 44.4-42.9% (1.6 million vote margin)
Trump wins the recorded Electoral vote: 306-232

After Undecided Voter Allocation
Trump wins  48.5%-44.3% (5 million vote margin)
Trump wins the True Electoral Vote: 351-187

 

New Jersey
Unadjusted EP Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 43% 86% 12% 1% 1%
Rep 27% 10% 82% 6% 2%
Ind 30% 67% 28% 3% 2%
Calc 100% 59.8% 35.7% 3.0% 1.6%
Unadjusted 100% 59.8% 35.8% 3.0% 1.4%
Votes (000) 3,663 2,190 1,311 110 51
    Margin -879    
    Margin -24.0%  
Reported Vote  Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 43% 86% 12% 0% 2%
Rep 27% 10% 82% 7% 1%
Ind 30% 51.0% 48.0% 0.0% 1%
Calc 100% 55.0% 41.7% 1.9% 1.4%
Reported 100% 55.0% 41.8% 1.9% 1.0%
Votes (000) 3,663 2,022 1,536 69 36
    Margin -486    
    Margin -13.3%
True Vote Model Party ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 25.8% 86% 12% 0% 2%
Rep 15.7% 10% 82% 7% 1%
Ind 58.5% 46.0% 52.0% 1.0% 1%
True Vote 100.0% 50.7% 46.4% 1.7% 1.3%
Votes (000) 3,663 1,856 1,699 62 46
    Margin -157    
    Margin -4.3%    

2016-presidential-election-table_nov-10-2016

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 13, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis