RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

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

Richard Charnin
Sept. 18, 2016

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

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

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

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

How many Independent and Democratic voters even know Jill Stein?

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

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

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

Current Media Polls

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

Ind………..12%……5%….40%….40%……..5%

Dem………44%……5%….85%…..5%………5%

Rep……….44%…….0%…..5%….85%…….10%

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

 

Adjusted Media Poll Shares

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

Ind………..12%……30%….15%….40%……..15%

Dem………44%……15%….70%…..5%……..10%

Rep……….44%…….0%…..5%….85%……..10%

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

 

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

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

Ind………..42%…35%…20%….25%……20%

Dem ……..29%…20%…70%……5%……..5%

Rep……….29%….2%…..2%…..80% ……16%

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

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

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

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

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on September 18, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

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

Richard Charnin
Aug. 26, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True Vote Model Model Base Case

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 
4 Comments

Posted by on August 26, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

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

Richard Charnin
Aug. 10, 2016

Richard Charnin

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

INTRODUCTION

Wicked Game: the Clandestine Murder of Democracy in America

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

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

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

PART 1 – The 2016 Democratic Primary

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

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

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

 
7 Comments

Posted by on August 10, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

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

Richard Charnin
August 7, 2016

Richard Charnin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Jill Stein Polling Sensitivity analysis

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

 

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

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

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

Posted by on August 7, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Entrance poll anomalies: the Iowa and Nevada Caucuses

Richard Charnin
July 25, 2016

Richard Charnin

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Remember the IA and NV caucuses? They were both close, unlike  the 12 caucuses that came later in which Bernie won landslides.  

This analysis will show why the IA and NV True Votes are consistent  with the other 12 caucuses. Bernie may very well have won easily.

IA and NV had entrance polls which were adjusted  to matched the recorded vote.Clinton won the adjusted polls. NV:  52.7-47.3%  and IA:  50.1-49.9%  http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/NV/Dem
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/IA/Dem

But the Party-ID Pct mix of Democrats and Independents was heavily weighted to Democrats. Using the  current mix from 2016 Gallup surveys, Sanders wins NV:  58.5-41.5% and  IA: 60.1-39.9%.

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

So where were all the Independent voters?
The Nevada caucus was closed.
The Iowa caucus was semi-open.

NEVADA

True Vote
NV 2016 Party-ID Sanders Clinton
Ind 58.5% 71.0% 29.0%
Dem 41.5% 40.8% 59.2%
Total 100.0% 58.5% 41.5%
Recorded Vote 47.3% 52.7%

 

Entrance Poll
NV Party-ID Sanders Clinton
Ind 19% 71.0% 29.0%
Dem 81% 40.8% 59.2%
Total 100% 46.6% 53.4%
Recorded Vote 47.3% 52.7%

 

IOWA

True Vote  
IA 2016 Party-ID Sanders Clinton
Ind 68.2% 69.0% 31.0%
Dem 31.8% 41.1% 58.9%
Total 100.0% 60.1% 39.9%
Recorded Vote 49.9% 50.1%

Entrance Poll

IA Party-ID  Sanders Clinton
Ind 24% 69.0% 31.0%
Dem 76% 41.1% 58.9%
Total 100% 47.8% 52.2%
Recorded Vote 49.9% 50.1%

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 25, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

Democratic Primary Anomalies: The RED states

Democratic Primary Anomalies: The RED states

Richard Charnin
July 23, 2016

Richard Charnin

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

In the 11 RED states:
– Clinton had an average 70.4% recorded share
– Independents comprised approximately 58.6% of voters
(based on 2016 Party-ID surveys)

Gallup poll Party preference trend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Assume: Sanders won 55% of Independents in the RED states.
Clinton needed an IMPOSSIBLE 106% of Democrats in the RED states to match the recorded RED state vote.

RED states
………………Pct………Sanders….Clinton
IND…………58.6%……55.0%……45.0%
Dem ……….41.4%……-6.4%……106.4%
Recorded…100.0%……29.6%……70.4%

Assume: Sanders won 45% of independents in the RED states.
Clinton needed an IMPLAUSIBLE 92% of Democrats in the RED states to match the recorded RED state vote.

….2-party… Sanders
…..IND…….Recorded Vote
Avg 58.6%… 29.6%

AL 57.6%… 19.8%
AR 57.5%… 31.0%
FL 59.3%… 34.1%
GA 55.7%… 28.3%
LA 73.4%… 24.6%
MS 55.5%… 16.6%
NC 58.0%… 42.8%
SC 55.2%… 26.1%
TN 58.5%… 32.9%
TX 58.8%… 33.7%
VA 55.0%… 35.4%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

 
2 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2016 Primary Exit Polls Party-ID: forcing a match to the recorded vote

2016 Primary Exit Polls Party-ID: forcing a match to the recorded vote

Richard Charnin
July 22, 2016

Richard Charnin

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

This  analysis seeks to determine an approximate True Vote in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

Clinton led the average of the adjusted exit polls (which were forced to match the recorded vote) by 56.4-43.6%. But there has been a significant increase in Independents tn National Party-ID statistics since 2014.

2014 National Party-ID: Dem 40.5 – Rep 35.2 – Ind 24.2%
2-party mix: Dem 62.6 – Ind 37.4%

Note the 19% increase in Independents since 2014:

2016 National Party-ID: Dem 32 -Rep 25 -Ind 43%
2-party mix: Ind 57.3- Dem 42.7%.

Gallup poll Party preference trend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

In the exit polled primaries, Sanders had a 51.3% True Vote and a 43.6% Recorded Vote.

The calculation of the True Vote differs from the Recorded Vote (adjusted Exit poll) in just one aspect: Independent and Democratic weights are based on the actual 2016 Party-ID mix in which independents comprise 57.3% and Democrats just 42.7% of the two-party mix. Sanders vote shares are unchanged.

In other words the True Vote assumes that no voters were disenfranchised and/or removed from the rolls.

The 2016  Party-ID  mix for each state is estimated by applying the equivalent proportional change from the 2014 National Party-ID to the 2016 National Party ID.

Let’s compare the the 2016 Party-ID effect on vote shares to the adjusted exit poll Party-ID weights  in three primaries: NY, MA, WI.

Candidate vote shares are held constant. The only difference between the adjusted exit poll (which was forced to match the recorded vote) and the True Vote  is the Party-ID mix. Sanders does significantly better when the 2016 Party-ID percentages are used.

View the exit polls here:
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/NY/Dem

View the spreadsheet calculations here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

NY Primary Exit poll matched to the recorded vote

Party ID Pct Clinton Sanders
Dem 83% 62% 38%
Ind 14% 28% 72%
Vote  97% 55.4% 41.6%
2-party  100% 57.1% 42.9%

NY True Vote

2016 PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 47% 62% 38%
Ind 53% 28% 72%
2-party 44.0% 56.0%

MA Primary Exit poll matched to the recorded vote

Party ID Pct Clinton Sanders
Dem 65% 60% 40%
Ind 33% 33% 66%
Vote   98% 49.9% 47.8%
2-party 100% 51.1% 48.9%

MA True Vote

2016 PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 30% 60% 40%
Ind 70% 33% 66%
2-party 41.2 58.8%

WI Primary Exit poll matched to the recorded vote

PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 71% 50% 50%
Ind 27% 28% 72%
Vote 43.1% 54.9%
2-party 43.9% 56.1%

WI True Vote

2016 PartyID Clinton Sanders
Dem 48% 50% 50%
Ind 52% 28% 72%
2-party 38.5% 61.5%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/pubchart?oid=244472232&format=image

 Sanders True Vote (2016 Party-ID) Exit Poll (Recorded)
AL 30.6% 19.8%
AR 39.8% 31.0%
CT 62.3% 47.4%
FL 44.1% 34.1%
GA 36.6% 28.3%
IA 60.1% 49.9%
IL 55.9% 49.1%
IN 61.4% 52.4%
MA 58.1% 49.3%
MD 40.0% 34.5%
MI 56.8% 50.8%
MO 56.9% 49.9%
MS 24.3% 16.6%
NC 48.1% 42.8%
NH 67.3% 61.4%
NV 58.5% 47.3%
NY 56.0% 42.1%
OH 51.9% 43.1%
OK 57.1% 55.5%
PA 54.0% 43.9%
SC 38.2% 26.1%
TN 42.4% 32.9%
TX 40.9% 33.7%
VA 45.0% 35.4%
VT 87.2% 86.3%
WI 61.5% 56.7%
WV 53.0% 51.4%

 

 
10 Comments

Posted by on July 22, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis