RSS

FBI’s Russia Collusion Case Fell Apart in First Month of Trump Presidency, Memos Show

Richard Charnin
March 12, 2020

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

FBI’s Russia Collusion Case Fell Apart in First Month of Trump Presidency, Memos Show
by John Solomon

The piecemeal release of FBI files in the Russia collusion investigation has masked an essential fact: James Comey’s G-men had substantially debunked the theory that Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow by the time the 45th president was settling into the Oval Office, according to declassified memos, court filings and interviews.

And that means a nascent presidency and an entire nation were put through two more years of lacerating debate over an issue that was mostly resolved in January 2017 inside the bureau’s own evidence files. The proof is now sitting in plain view.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fbis-russia-collusion-case-fell-apart-first-month-trump-presidency#.Xmk8LgIKpjs.twitter

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 12, 2020 in Uncategorized

 

If the DNC stole the 2016 primary from Sanders and is trying to steal the 2020 primary from him, what is the probability that Clinton tried to steal the 2016 election from Trump?

Richard Charnin
Updated: March 14, 2020

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

If the DNC stole the 2016 primary from Sanders and is trying to steal the 2020 primary from him, what is the probability that Clinton tried to steal the 2016 election from Trump?

The myth that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million is parroted daily by pundits, even Trump supporters. Clinton won a fraudulent recorded popular vote, but Trump won the True Vote. It’s 2020 and the pundits still fail to recognize the historical fact that the recorded vote is never the same as the True Vote. It’s past time for a great awakening.

Many on the left are conditioned into believing (like I was) that ALL UNADJUSTED exit polls are accurate (which I confirmed for all elections PRIOR TO the 2016 PRESIDENTIAL). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EWaKPDUolqbN7_od8sSTNMRObfUidlVPRBxeyyirbLM/edit#gid=15 ….

They apparently assume the polls would never be rigged by the MSM (NEP) establishment to support the establishment candidate.

BUT IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT IN 2016 THE MSM WAS IN THE TANK FOR CLINTON. THEREFORE THE MSM COULD NOT HAVE HER LOSE THE EXIT POLLS TO TRUMP LIKE SHE DID TO BERNIE – OTHERWISE PEOPLE WOULD CLAIM THE ELECTION WAS FRAUDULENT.

Have the true believers ever done an independent analysis to confirm that HRC won the popular vote? No, they just assume on faith that she won fairly based on 29 unadjusted state exit polls – without doing a confirming math analysis.

Exposing the 2016 Popular Vote Myth

When will they ever learn? Exit polls, just like pre-election and approval polls, can be rigged. Proof: they won’t show us the raw precinct data.

In the 2016 primaries the odds of Election Fraud favoring Clinton was 77 billion to one. The probability P that AT LEAST 11 of 26 primaries would exceed the MoE is calculated using the Binomial distribution.
 P = 1 in 76.8 Billion = 1- BINOMDIST (10,26,.025,true)  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/democratic-primaries-election-fraud-probability-analysis/

This 2016 post election true vote analysis indicates that Trump won the popular vote, despite what the unadjusted exit polls said. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/23743/

In the  2020 primary. the DNC rigged the voting machines – just like they did in the 2016 primary and presidential elections in which Sanders and Trump were cheated. https://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/14/michigan-2020-democratic-party-primary/

Probability (at least 4 of 8 exit polls exceed the MoE)
P= 1 in 39,645 = 1-BINOMDIST (3, 8, 0.025,true) 

Probability of fraud = NORMDIST (EP, RS, MoE/1.96, true)
EP = exit poll share
RS = reported vote share
MoE=margin of error

Sanders RS EP Diff MoE Prob Fraud >MoE
SC 19.9% 21.3% -1.4% 3.4% 79.0% 0
MA 26.6% 30.4% -3.8% 4.0% 96.9% 0
NH 25.6% 25.9% -0.3% 2.6% 58.9% 0
TX 30.0% 34.0% -4.0% 2.9% 99.7% 1
VT 50.7% 57.0% -6.3% 5.4% 98.9% 1
CA 33.8% 38.0% -4.2% 3.1% 99.6% 1
MI 36.4% 43.0% -6.6% 3.9% 99.95% 1
MO 34.6% 39.0% -4.4% 4.6% 97.0% 0
Average 32.2% 36.1% -3.9% 3.7% 97.9% 4
 
2 Comments

Posted by on March 10, 2020 in Uncategorized

 

More evidence of DNC rigged voting machines in SC, just like the 2016 primary and presidential elections

Richard Charnin
March 4, 2020

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

More evidence of DNC rigged voting machines in SC, just like the 2016 primary and presidential elections in which Sanders and Trump were cheated.

In the 2016 primaries: the odds of Election Fraud favoring Clinton was 77 billion to one. The probability P that AT LEAST 11 of 26 primaries would exceed the MoE is calculated using the Binomial distribution.
 P = 1 in 76.8 Billion = 1-BINOMDIST(10,26,.025,true) https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/democratic-primaries-election-fraud-probability-analysis/

In the 2020 SC primary, the probability of  Election Fraud  favoring Biden was 99.2% based on the 3.7% discrepancy between Biden’s reported vote and the unadjusted exit poll.  A 3.0% margin of error is assumed. Assuming a 4.0% MoE, P=96.5%.  http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/02/south-carolina-2020-democratic-party-primary/

The probability P is calculated using the Normal distribution
P=99.2% = NORMDIST (EP, RS, MoE/1.96, true)
RS = 48.4%= Biden recorded vote share
EP = 44.7% = Biden exit poll share
MoE = 3.0% = margin of error

In the CA 2020 primary, there was a 4.2% discrepancy between Sanders 38% exit poll and 33.8% reported vote. The probability of fraud is 99.6%.

Sanders exit poll (EP) exceeded his reported share (RS) in 6 primaries for which we have exit poll data.

………RS…..EP…Diff….MoE…Prob Fraud
SC 19.9% 21.3% -1.4% 3.4% 79.0%
MA 26.6% 30.4% -3.8% 4.0% 96.9%
NH 25.6% 25.9% -0.3% 2.6% 58.9%
TX 30.0% 34.0% -4.0% 2.9% 99.7%
VT 50.7% 57.0% -6.3% 5.4% 98.9%
CA 33.8% 38.0% -4.2% 3.1% 99.6%

Avg 31.1% 34.4% -3.3% 3.6% 88.8%

Tim Canova: “Today we are greeted with news that Wasserman Schultz just endorsed Joe Biden for the 2020 race. To many of us, this seems like déjà vu all over again.It was also reported that Biden outperformed the exit polls in yesterday’s South Carolina primary, which uses electronic scanning machines they bought from Election Systems & Software (ES&S) for $51 million. We already know from our 2018 election against Wasserman Schultz how easy it is to rig the software of these electronic voting machines – either by hacking in remotely or by an insider manipulating the source code.

We have already received reports from a leading election expert in South Carolina that perhaps 10% of these ExpressVote machines failed in yesterday’s primary. We’ve learned from our rigged elections in South Florida that we cannot trust any electronic voting machines manufactured by ES&S and that we certainly cannot trust Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”  https://progressforall.org/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-24/concern-grows-over-soros-linked-voting-machines

 
11 Comments

Posted by on March 4, 2020 in Uncategorized

 

My reply to an Amazon reviewer of “Trump Won the True Vote”

Richard Charnin
Jan.2, 2020

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

Amazon deleted< my reply to Mike Landau,  a reviewer of “Trump Won the True Vote”. He questioned my credibility and motivation in my analysis of the 2016 election. https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Won-True-Vote-Independents/dp/1979900973/

Landau wrote:
Mr. Charnin has written several interesting books previously building on the fact that over the last 30 years, since widespread adoption of proprietary voting machines operated by companies controlled by Republican activists, exit polls have fairly consistently differed from counted votes with exit polls roughly 4-7% more Democratic. He has come up with his own model of projection which he calls True Vote and which for the 10 years he’s been doing it has tracked closely to exit poll results, so he argues for consistent tabulation [and other] fraud in favor of republicans.

In this book, however, though again in the 2016 election exit polls were again much higher Dem than official counts, such that if accurate Clinton won handily, Mr. Charnin suddenly renounces the likely accuracy of exit polls he’s been touting for years, apparently because he’s become a Trump supporter in distaste at H CLinton’s unfair treatment of bernie sanders, and suddenly switches to a claim the vote count was several % skewed toward the democrats! In doing so he makes a number of false claims, including that millions of illegal aliens were allowed to vote for Dems, that the establishment favored Clinton [Rep. establishment solidly was behind Trump], and that George Soros now controls voting machine companies – this an apparent reference to a false right-wing conspiracy theory debunked on Snopes and elsewhere, that he now runs SmartMatic – in fact, voting machine companies are still controlled by activist Republicans. Charnin’s exit poll data is still of interest, but his descent into right-wing conspiracy and abandonment of his previous belief in exit polls, show a sad eagerness to adjust his results to his preferences, which must call into some question all of his earlier works – which are still recommended, though with this caveat.

My response:
Landau is wrong about
1) Snopes being impartial.Their reputation was shattered a long time ago. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#4fdaf2fe227f
2) Soros not having an interest in voting machines in 16 states. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mb4ezy/top-voting-machine-vendor-admits-it-installed-remote-access-software-on-systems-sold-to-states
3) illegal voters not coming out in millions for Clinton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_licenses_for_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States
4) Claiming that I descended into a RW conspiracy. That is a TELL.
5) Claiming the establishment favored Trump. That is delusional.

My analysis shows that in 2016, exit pollster Edison Research(which is funded by the National Election Pool of six media giants} adjusted the polls for Clinton. The MSM will do ANYTHING to destroy Trump  Pundits like Landau have a closed mind and don’t have a clue about mathematical election modeling.

My posts and four election fraud books are all based on a thorough, fair analysis. In 2016, HRC stole the primaries from Bernie Sanders. I wrote “77 Billion to One”, which was largely based on a) deviations of unadjusted state and national exit polls from the recorded vote and b) Cumulative Vote Share Analysis. Even the DNC lawyers admitted the fraud. The DNC/establishment could not let Clinton lose the unadjusted exit polls in the presidential election.

THE MSM INFLATED THE UNADJUSTED EXIT POLLS FOR CLINTON AND THEN ADJUSTED THEM TO MATCH A  FRAUDULENT RECORDED VOTE COUNT (IT IS STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE). THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID THEY WOULD DO IN MY PRE-ELECTION TRUE VOTE ANALYSIS.

Just because the National Election Pool (NEP) of six media giants provided accurate exit polls in PRIOR ELECTIONS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE 2016 PRIMARY does not mean they were not biased in the 2016 presidential. The establishment (MSM) wanted HRC to win come hell or high water. We are by now quite familiar with the Deep State/Mainstream Media conspiracy to (a) keep Trump from winning the election and (b) supporting a bogus impeachment to try and defeat him in 2020. THEREFORE IT IS LOGICAL THAT THE MSM WOULD RIG PRE-ELECTION AND EXIT POLLS IN FAVOR OF CLINTON. THAT IS JUST COMMON SENSE.

NOW WILL LANDAU USE CRITICAL THINKING AND TURN OFF RACHEL MADDOW? THE MSM WILL GO TO ANY EXTREME TO DESTROY TRUMP WHICH THEY VOWED TO DO THE DAY HE WAS INAUGURATED.

NO ONE SHOULD EVER ACCUSE ME OF ADJUSTING MY ANALYSIS TO PERSONAL PREFERENCES. I HAVE THREE DEGREES IN APPLIED MATHEMATICS AND WORKED IN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY AND WALL STREET INVESTMENT BANKING DEVELOPING MATH-BASED ANALYTICAL PROGRAMMING MODELS. COMMENTS ON MY MOTIVATIONS ARE UNCALLED FOR. TRUTH IS ALL.

2016 Election Model
href=”https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1036175945&#8243;

 
7 Comments

Posted by on January 2, 2020 in Uncategorized

 

Rasmussen polls and Impeachment

Richard Charnin
Dec. 13, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

On Dec. 12, Rasmussen had Trump approval at 51% vs. 48% disapproval, up from 44% approval on Nov. 25 (1500 likely voters). Is this an indication that the impeachment hearings are backfiring on the Dems? Politico/Morning Consulting had 39% approval vs. 58% disapproval (1994 registered voters), a -19% spread! One of these polls is way off. Let’s see how the polls react over the next few weeks.

Assuming Gallup survey Party-ID (39% Ind, 31% Dem, 30% Repub), 95% Repub Trump approval and 5% Dem Trump approval, 54% Independent Trump approval is required to match Rasmussen’s 51% Trump approval.

According to Politico Party-ID (13% Ind, 47% Dem, 40% Repub) just 11% of Independents approve. Which is most plausible?

Politico Trump Approval
Politco Approve Disapprove

Rep 40.3% 83.0% 16.0%
Dem 46.5% 9.0% 88.0%
Ind 13.2% 10.6% 80.3%
Poll 100% 39.0% 58.0%

Rasmussen Trump Approval
Gallup Approve Disapprove

Rep 30.0% 95.0% 5.0%
Dem 31.0% 5.0% 95.0%
Ind 39.0% 53.7% 43.7%
Poll 100% 51.0% 48.0%

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yh0YkXBVctdJwt0_XHrpCC6f7K30oEz0Vr13MiU5qT4/edit#gid=528588856

A viewer commented: “It’s a Rasmussen poll, Richard. They always skew right because they only poll landline users and the average age of landline users is 49. Their methodology is garbage”.

I replied:
The MSM is biased. They inflate Dem Party- ID and vote shares. Therefore, it is clear that Rasmussen polls are closer to the truth than the MSM. The question is how close. My analysis of the 2016 primary and presidential election and the 2018 midterms shows that Dem votes were inflated. It is undisputed: the MSM is in the tank for the DNC. 

Rasmussen Methodology 
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology

“Data for Rasmussen Reports survey research is collected using an automated polling methodology.

Generally speaking, the automated survey process is identical to that of traditional, operator-assisted research firms such as Gallup, Harris, and Roper. However, automated polling systems use a single, digitally-recorded, voice to conduct the interview while traditional firms rely on phone banks, boiler rooms, and operator-assisted technology.

For tracking surveys such as the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, the automated technology ensures that every respondent hears exactly the same question, from the exact same voice, asked with the exact same inflection every single time.

All Rasmussen Reports’ survey questions are digitally recorded and fed to a calling program that determines question order, branching options, and other factors. Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a process that ensures appropriate geographic representation. Typically, calls are placed from 5 pm to 9 pm local time during the week. Saturday calls are made from 11 am to 6 pm local time and Sunday calls from 1 pm to 9 pm local time.

******To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.*****************

After the surveys are completed, the raw data is processed through a ****WEIGHTING**** program to ensure that the sample reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political party, and other factors. The processing step is required because different segments of the population answer the phone in different ways. For example, women answer the phone more than men, older people are home more and answer more than younger people, and rural residents typically answer the phone more frequently than urban residents.

For surveys of all adults, the population targets are determined by census bureau data.

For political surveys, census bureau data provides a starting point and a series of screening questions are used to determine likely voters. The questions involve voting history, interest in the current campaign, and likely voting intentions.

Rasmussen Reports determines its partisan weighting targets through a dynamic weighting system that takes into account the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area”.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 12, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

The Reuters/Ipsos impeachment polling scam: more confirmation of MSM duplicity

Richard Charnin
Nov. 29, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

The latest poll, conducted on Monday and Tuesday, found that 47% of adults in the United States felt Trump “should be impeached,” while 40% said he should not.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/reuters-peddles-democrat-heavy-poll-claiming-impeachment-support-growing

BUT THE REUTERS NUMBERS ARE MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! How can -14.1% of Indies approve and -6.8% oppose impeachment?

The problem? Reuters sampled a disproportionate number of Democrats. Buried at the bottom of their report, they disclose:

“The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online, in English, throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 1,118 adults, including 528 Democrats (51%), 394 Republicans (38%) and 111 (11%) Independents. It has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 3 percentage points”.

Reuters…….. Approve Oppose (Implausible Party ID)
Rep 38%……. 20.0% 80.0%
Dem 51%…… 80.0% 20.0%
Ind 11%……. -14.1% -6.8% impossible negatives!
Poll………….. 47.0% 40.0% Bogus

Approval calculation: .47=.38*.20+.51*.80 +.11*(-.141)

Let’s adjust to plausible realistic Gallup voter affiliation weights and estimate the true percent of Independents who oppose impeachment.

Gallup………Approve Oppose (Plausible Party ID)
Rep 30% …… 20.0% 80.0%
Dem 31%…… 80.0% 20.0%
Ind 39%……… 23.6% 50.8%
Adjusted…… 40.0% 50.0% True

From Zerohedge: “After several major polls revealed a sharp decline in support for impeaching President Trump in the wake of unconvincing public testimony by aggrieved bureaucrats (and at least one House Democrat publicly opposing the move), Reuters/Ipsos now claims support for impeachment has increased.

“Reuters sampled more Democrats than Republicans and independents combined to arrive at their conclusion. They also reveal that ” about eight in 10 Democrats were supportive of impeaching Trump, and eight in 10 Republicans opposed”

The result, combined with Reuters/Ipsos polling over the past several weeks, showed that the number of Americans who want to impeach the president increasingly outnumbers those who do not. -Reuters

In the 2016 US election, Reuters/Ipsos was oversampling Democrats. Hillary Clinton had a giant lead over Donald Trump using a poll that sampled 44% Democrats and 33% Republicans.

I  analyzed the bogus CNN poll on Nov. 26:

CNN has 50% for impeachment, 43% against? That is just more BS propaganda. Who believes it? If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. MSM polls are always over-weighted for the Dems.

The Gallup monthly voter affiliation survey is an accurate National tracking poll. Trump won the TRUE popular vote in 2016 and will win a landslide in 2020!

Bogus CNN poll: 50% approve, 43% oppose
CNN Pct…. Approve Oppose
Rep 25%……. 9.0% 84.0% Implausible
Dem 31%….. 85.0% 12.0%
Ind 44%……..48.6% 41.5%
Poll………….50.0% 43.0% Implausible

Adjusted: 44% approve, 55% oppose
Gallup Pct.. Approve Oppose
Rep 30%………..9.0% 90.0%  Plausible
Dem 31%……. 85.0% 12.0%
Ind 39%..,…… 38.0% 62.0%
Adjusted…… 44.0% 55.0% Plausible

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/2016-national-exit-poll-race-vote-shares-and-corresponding-census-weights-indicates-that-trump-won-the-popular-vote/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/trump-cnn-impeachment-poll/index.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 29, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

 2016 National Exit Poll Race vote shares and corresponding Census weights indicate that Trump won the Popular vote

Richard Charnin
Nov.16, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

 2016 National Exit Poll vote shares and corresponding Census weights indicate that Trump won the Popular vote.

It is standard operating procedure: In every exit poll, all demographic crosstabs are adjusted to match the recorded vote.  But what if the exit poll weightings and/or vote shares are forced to match a bogus recorded vote? That means the polls are also bogus.

The NEP Race crosstab indicates that 71% of the electorate were white voters. Clinton won the recorded vote by 2.83 million (48.2-46.1%).

Census vote data indicate that white voters comprised 73.46% of the electorate. Using  Census weights and NEP vote shares, Trump is the winner  by 852,000 votes (47.5-46.8%).

Clinton won the 28 exit poll states by 49.2-45.2%.  But according to the exit polls, 68.9% of voters were white compared to 72.8% in the Census. The 3.9% discrepancy favored Clinton since Trump won whites by at least 20%. The 28 states represented 110.9  (81%) of 136.2 million votes.

Trump won the 23 non-exit poll states (25.4 million votes) by 50.4-43.7%.  The Census showed that whites were 76.2% of the vote in the 23 states.

View the sensitivity analysis matrix of alternative Trump shares scenarios. For instance, if Trump had 59% of whites and 22% of non-whites, he wins by 5.58 million votes (49.2-45.1%).

NEP Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 71.0% 37% 57% 6%
Black 12.0% 89% 8% 3%
Latino 11.0% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 4.0% 65% 27% 8%
Other 2.0% 56% 36% 8% Margin
Total 100.00% 47.93% 46.31% 5.76% 1.62%
136,216 65,288 63,082 7,846 2,207
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833
NEP Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 71.0% 37.0% 57.0% 6.0%
Non-white 29.0% 74.0% 21.0% 5.0% Margin
Total 100.0% 47.73% 46.56% 5.71% 1.17%
136,216 65,016 63,422 7,778 1,594
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833
Census Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 73.46% 37.0% 57.0% 6.0%
Non-white 26.54% 74.0% 21.0% 5.0% Margin
100.00% 46.82% 47.45% 5.73% 0.63%
136,216 63,776 64,628 7,811 852
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833
Trump%
White 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0%
Non-white Trump
25.0% 48.51% 49.24% 49.98% 50.71% 51.45%
24.0% 48.24% 48.98% 49.71% 50.45% 51.18%
23.0% 47.98% 48.71% 49.45% 50.18% 50.91%
22.0% 47.71% 48.45% 49.18% 49.91% 50.65%
21.0% 47.45% 48.18% 48.91% 49.65% 50.38%
Trump%
White 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0%
Non-white Clinton
25.0% 45.76% 45.02% 44.29% 43.55% 42.82%
24.0% 46.02% 45.29% 44.55% 43.82% 43.09%
23.0% 46.29% 45.55% 44.82% 44.09% 43.35%
22.0% 46.55% 45.82% 45.09% 44.35% 43.62%
21.0% 46.82% 46.09% 45.35% 44.62% 43.88%
Trump%
White 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0%
Non-white
Margin
25.0% 3,745 5,746 7,747 9,748 11,750
24.0% 3,022 5,023 7,024 9,025 11,027
23.0% 2,299 4,300 6,301 8,302 10,304
22.0% 1,575 3,577 5,578 7,579 9,581
21.0% 852 2,854 4,855 6,856 8,858

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17h3tOueSvQWwYFLwOEg3tCoIFdoB7wnEscsMgSFeDAk/edit#gid=1447777586

Tables 4A and 4B:    https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-580.html

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 16, 2019 in Uncategorized