RSS

Tag Archives: 2016 election fraud

MY COMMENTS TO THE MSM ON THE RIGGING OF THE 2016 PRE-ELECTION POLLS

The MSM just interviewed the authors of  Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign on the reasons for Clinton’s loss.  I commented to Chris Mathews and Brian Williams of MSNBC as well as FOX and CBS on how MSM pollsters rigged the pre-election polls for Clinton.

FYI: Your guests may not have looked at my 2016 Election model. It was based adjustments to final pre-election polls which were biased for Clinton. The Democratic Party-ID share was overstated at the expense of Independents who went solidly for Trump. In addition, there is strong evidence that votes were stolen from Jill Stein – by Clinton.

The 2016 Model projected Trump’s 306 RECORDED EV. But he actually had approximately 351 TRUE EV after adjusting for late undecided voters. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/2016-election-model-forecast/

Recorded Vote: Clinton 48.3-46.2%, Trump 306-232 EV
Recorded Vote Forecast: Trump 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV
True Vote Model: Trump 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV

Note: I exactly forecast the RECORDED EV in the last three elections: 365, 332, 306. In each case the winner did better in the True Vote than the Recorded vote.

Here is the proof: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 24, 2017 in 2016 election

 

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

ADJUSTED POLLS: VOTERS DECIDING BEFORE AND AFTER OCT.1

Richard Charnin
Updated: June 27, 2017

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

The National Exit Poll is ALWAYS adjusted to match the recorded vote. Clinton led the adjusted National Exit Poll by 48.3-46.2%.
The 2016 NEP 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.
Clinton won voters who decided prior to Oct.1 by  51-45%. If  Trump actually won these voters by 47-46%, then he won the True Vote by 47.3-44.4%.
The 2016 NEP indicates that 40% of voters decided who to vote for after Sept. 1. Of these late deciders, 48% said they voted for Trump and 42% for Clinton.

Since  exit polls are always adjusted to match the fraudulent recorded vote, assuming the shares of voters who decided after Oct.1 are essentially correct, then the shares of those who decided prior to Oct.1 must have been inflated for Clinton. 

NATIONAL EXIT POLL ADJUSTED PRE OCT. 1 TO MATCH RECORDED VOTE

Decided  Voted Clinton Trump Other Margin
Post Oct 1 26.0% 40.0% 48.0% 12.0% 8.0%
Pre-Oct 1 74.0% 51.0% 45.0% 4.0% -6.0%
Match RV 100.0% 48.1% 45.8% 6.1% -2.4%
Reported 100.0% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5% -2.0%

NATIONAL EXIT POLL ADJUSTED PRE OCT.1 TO MATCH TRUE VOTE

Decided  Voted Clinton Trump Other Margin
Post Oct 1 26.0% 40.0% 48.0% 12.0% 8.0%
Pre-Oct 1 74.0% 46.0% 47.0% 7.0% 1.0%
Match TV 100.0% 44.4% 47.3% 8.3% 2.8%
Reported 100.0% 48.2% 46.2% 5.6% -2.0%

NATIONAL EXIT POLL ADJUSTED PRE SEPT.1 TO MATCH RECORDED VOTE

Decided Voted Clinton Trump Other Margin
Post Sep 1 40% 42.0% 48.0% 10.0% 6.0%
Pre Sep 1 60% 52.5% 45.0% 2.5% -7.5%
Match  100.0% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5% -2.1%
Recorded 48.3% 46.2% 5.5% -2.1%

NATIONAL EXIT POLL ADJUSTED PRE SEPT.1 TO MATCH TRUE VOTE

Decided Voted Clinton Trump Other Margin
Post Sep 1 40% 42.0% 48.0% 10.0% 6.0%
Pre Sep 1 60% 47.0% 48.0% 5.0% 1.0%
Match True 100.0% 45.0% 48.0% 7.0% 3.0%
TRUE   45.0% 48.0% 7.0% 3.0%

According to Real Clear Politics, Clinton led the RCP average of pre-election polls after Oct. 1 by 45.4-40.7%. The National Exit Poll indicates that Trump led voters who decided after Oct.1 by 48-40%, a 12.7% margin difference between RCP and the NEP

Clinton led the RCP average of pre-election polls before Oct. 1 by 42.4-39.2%. The NEP indicates Clinton won voters who decided before Oct.1 by 51-45%, a 2.8% difference in margin between the RCP and NEP. How does one explain the large difference in margin between post-Oct.1 pre-election and exit polls compared to the pre-Oct. polls?

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

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/pubchart?oid=729649900&format=image

Note the change in Trump’s margin after Oct. 1  in IL (57%), NY (51%),  CA (29%), OR (32%), WI (31%), MN (28%), NC (28%).

When Decided 

Post Oct.1   Pre- Oct.1   Chg
    HRC DJT Marg HRC DJT Marg Marg
    38.1% 50.5% 12.4% 49.4% 37.0% -12.4% 24.7%
    40.6% 49.5% 8.9% 52.3% 44.1% -8.2% 17.1%
Post Oct.1
IL 30% 32% 55% 23% 66% 32% -34% 57%
NY 26% 38% 53% 15% 67% 31% -36% 51%
OR 20% 32% 48% 16% 54% 38% -16% 32%
WI 14% 30% 59% 29% 49% 47% -2% 31%
CA 29% 51% 42% -9% 67% 29% -38% 29%
MN 29% 33% 51% 18% 51% 41% -10% 28%
NC 25% 33% 57% 24% 51% 47% -4% 28%
ME 31% 35% 51% 16% 51% 43% -8% 24%
CO 22% 37% 48% 11% 52% 42% -10% 21%
IA 26% 35% 53% 18% 47% 47% 0% 18%
MI 26% 37% 52% 15% 50% 47% -3% 18%
NM 28% 37% 41% 4% 52% 40% -12% 16%
NH 29% 42% 50% 8% 51% 45% -6% 14%
OH 25% 37% 54% 17% 47% 50% 3% 14%
VA 23% 42% 48% 6% 52% 44% -8% 14%
WA 22% 46% 41% -5% 57% 38% -19% 14%
AZ 25% 40% 48% 8% 48% 48% 0% 8%
FL 26% 43% 50% 7% 49% 49% 0% 7%
UT 44% 17% 39% 22% 36% 52% 16% 6%
NJ 25% 50% 41% -9% 55% 43% -12% 3%
PA 24% 43% 49% 6% 47% 51% 4% 2%
GA 20% 47% 55% 8% 45% 53% 8% 0%
NV 11% 45% 40% -5% 49% 44% -5% 0%
KY 28% 27% 63% 36% 31% 67% 36% 0%
SC 26% 39% 50% 11% 42% 56% 14% -3%
MO 29% 36% 52% 16% 38% 59% 21% -5%
TX 24% 46% 47% 1% 44% 51% 7% -6%
IN 29% 34% 53% 19% 35% 61% 26% -7%
When decided
NATIONAL Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 26.0% 40.0% 48.0% 12.0% 8.0%
before 74.0% 51.0% 45.0% 4.0% -6.0%
calc 100.0% 48.1% 45.8% 6.1% -2.4%
Reported 100.0% 48.2% 46.2% 5.6% -2.0%
WA Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 22.0% 46.0% 41.0% 13.0% -5.0%
before 78.0% 57.0% 38.0% 5.0% -19.0%
calc 100.0% 54.6% 38.7% 6.8% -15.9%
Reported 100.0% 54.7% 38.4% 6.9% -16.4%
IL Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 31.0% 33.0% 55.0% 12.0% 22.0%
before 69.0% 66.0% 32.0% 2.0% -34.0%
calc 100.0% 55.8% 39.1% 5.1% -16.6%
Reported 100.0% 55.8% 38.8% 5.4% -17.1%
CA Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 29.0% 51.0% 42.0% 7.0% -9.0%
before 71.0% 67.0% 29.0% 4.0% -38.0%
calc 100.0% 62.4% 32.8% 4.9% -29.6%
Reported 100.0% 61.7% 31.6% 6.7% -30.1%
NY Clinton Trump Other/Undec Margin
month 26.0% 38.4% 53.0% 8.6% 14.6%
before 74.0% 67.0% 31.0% 2.0% -36.0%
calc 100.0% 59.6% 36.7% 3.7% -22.9%
Reported 100.0% 59.6% 36.7% 3.7% -22.8%
OR Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 20.0% 32.0% 48.0% 20.0% 16.0%
before 80.0% 54.0% 38.0% 8.0% -16.0%
calc 100.0% 49.6% 40.0% 10.4% -9.6%
Reported 100.0% 50.1% 39.1% 10.8% -11.0%
OH Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 25.0% 37.0% 54.0% 9.0% 17.0%
before 75.0% 47.0% 50.0% 3.0% 3.0%
calc 100.0% 44.5% 51.0% 4.5% 6.5%
Reported 100.0% 43.6% 51.7% 4.8% 8.1%
NC Clinton Trump Other/Undec Margin
month 25.0% 33.0% 57.0% 10.0% 24.0%
before 75.0% 51.0% 47.0% 2.0% -4.0%
calc 100.0% 46.5% 49.5% 4.0% 3.0%
Reported 100.0% 46.2% 49.8% 4.0% 3.7%
NJ Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 25.0% 50.0% 41.0% 9.0% -9.0%
before 75.0% 55.0% 43.0% 2.0% -12.0%
calc 100.0% 53.8% 42.5% 3.7% -11.3%
Reported 100.0% 55.0% 41.0% 4.0% -14.0%
PA Clinton Trump Other/Undec Margin
month 24.0% 43.0% 49.0% 8.0% 6.0%
before 76.0% 47.0% 51.0% 2.0% 4.0%
calc 100.0% 46.0% 50.5% 3.4% 4.5%
Reported 100.0% 47.9% 48.6% 3.6% 0.7%
MI Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 26.0% 37.0% 52.0% 11.0% 15.0%
before 74.0% 50.0% 47.0% 3.0% -3.0%
calc 100.0% 46.6% 48.3% 5.1% 1.7%
Reported 100.0% 47.3% 47.5% 5.2% 0.2%
MO Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 29.0% 36.0% 52.0% 12.0% 16.0%
before 71.0% 38.0% 59.0% 3.0% 21.0%
calc 100.0% 37.4% 57.0% 5.6% 19.6%
Reported 100.0% 38.1% 56.8% 5.1% 18.6%
IA Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 26.0% 35.0% 53.0% 12.0% 18.0%
before 74.0% 47.0% 47.0% 6.0% 0.0%
calc 100.0% 43.9% 48.6% 7.6% 4.7%
Reported 100.0% 41.7% 51.1% 7.1% 9.4%
FL Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 26.0% 43.0% 50.0% 7.0% 7.0%
before 74.0% 49.0% 49.0% 2.0% 0.0%
calc 100.0% 47.4% 49.3% 3.3% 1.8%
Reported 100.0% 47.8% 49.0% 3.2% 1.2%
WI Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 14.0% 30.0% 59.0% 11.0% 29.0%
before 86.0% 49.0% 47.0% 4.0% -2.0%
calc 100.0% 46.3% 48.7% 5.0% 2.3%
Reported 100.0% 46.5% 47.2% 6.3% 0.8%
VA Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 23.0% 42.0% 48.0% 10.0% 6.0%
before 77.0% 52.0% 44.0% 4.0% -8.0%
calc 100.0% 49.7% 44.9% 5.4% -4.8%
Reported 100.0% 49.8% 44.4% 5.8% -5.3%
NV Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 11.0% 45.0% 40.0% 15.0% -5.0%
before 89.0% 49.0% 44.0% 7.0% -5.0%
calc 100.0% 48.6% 43.6% 7.9% -5.0%
Reported 100.0% 47.9% 45.5% 6.6% -2.4%
NH Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 29.0% 42.0% 50.0% 8.0% 8.0%
before 71.0% 51.0% 45.0% 4.0% -6.0%
calc 100.0% 48.4% 46.5% 5.2% -1.9%
Reported 100.0% 47.0% 46.6% 6.4% -0.4%
MN Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 29.0% 33.0% 51.0% 16.0% 18.0%
before 71.0% 51.0% 41.0% 8.0% -10.0%
calc 100.0% 45.8% 43.9% 10.3% -1.9%
Reported 100.0% 46.4% 44.9% 8.6% -1.5%
ME Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 31.0% 35.0% 51.0% 14.0% 16.0%
before 69.0% 51.0% 43.0% 6.0% -8.0%
calc 100.0% 46.0% 45.5% 8.5% -0.6%
Reported 100.0% 47.8% 44.9% 7.3% -3.0%
CO Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 22.0% 37.0% 48.0% 15.0% 11.0%
before 78.0% 52.0% 42.0% 6.0% -10.0%
calc 100.0% 48.7% 43.3% 8.0% -5.4%
Reported 100.0% 48.2% 43.3% 8.6% -4.9%
TX Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 24.0% 46.0% 47.0% 7.0% 1.0%
before 76.0% 44.0% 51.0% 5.0% 7.0%
calc 100.0% 44.5% 50.0% 5.5% 5.6%
Reported 100.0% 43.2% 52.2% 4.5% 9.0%
GA Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 20.0% 47.0% 55.0% -2.0% 8.0%
before 80.0% 45.0% 53.0% 2.0% 8.0%
calc 100.0% 45.4% 53.4% 1.2% 8.0%
Reported 100.0% 45.6% 50.8% 3.6% 5.1%
UT Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 44.0% 17.0% 39.0% 44.0% 22.0%
before 56.0% 36.0% 52.0% 12.0% 16.0%
calc 100.0% 27.6% 46.3% 26.1% 18.6%
Reported 100.0% 27.5% 45.5% 27.0% 18.1%
SC Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 26.0% 39.0% 50.0% 11.0% 11.0%
before 74.0% 42.0% 56.0% 2.0% 14.0%
calc 100.0% 41.2% 54.4% 4.3% 13.2%
Reported 100.0% 40.7% 54.9% 4.4% 14.3%
KY Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 28.0% 27.0% 63.0% 10.0% 36.0%
before 72.0% 31.0% 67.0% 2.0% 36.0%
calc 100.0% 29.9% 65.9% 4.2% 36.0%
Reported 100.0% 32.7% 62.5% 4.8% 29.8%
NM Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 28.0% 37.0% 41.0% 22.0% 4.0%
before 72.0% 52.0% 40.0% 8.0% -12.0%
calc 100.0% 47.8% 40.3% 11.9% -7.5%
Reported 100.0% 48.3% 40.0% 11.7% -8.2%
IN Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 29.0% 34.0% 53.0% 13.0% 19.0%
before 71.0% 35.0% 61.0% 4.0% 26.0%
calc 100.0% 34.7% 58.7% 6.6% 24.0%
Reported 100.0% 37.9% 56.8% 5.3% 18.9%
AZ Clinton Trump Other Margin
month 25.0% 40.0% 48.0% 12.0% 8.0%
before 75.0% 48.0% 48.0% 4.0% 0.0%
calc 100.0% 46.0% 48.0% 6.0% 2.0%
Reported 100.0% 45.1% 48.7% 6.2% 3.5%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 8, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

Why the 2016 pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and recorded vote are all wrong

Richard Charnin
Dec.30, 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

The 2016 election was different in kind from prior elections; the Democrat was the establishment candidate. It was established beyond a reasonable doubt that the primaries were stolen from Bernie Sanders by the DNC which colluded with the media.

Some analysts claim that the 2016 unadjusted state exit polls prove that the election was rigged for Trump. But just because the polls were excellent indicators of the True Vote in the past does not prove that they were accurate in 2016. 

Are we supposed to believe that the MSM would not rig the unadjusted exit polls to match the rigged  pre-election polls  to make it appear that Clinton was the winner?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0
http://www.inquisitr.com/3692040/2016-presidential-polls-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-leading-battleground-states-win-lose/

Exit pollsters at  Edison Research never reveal the location of precincts, votes and survey results. The only way to prove that the unadjusted exit polls are correct (and the published results bogus) is 1) to reveal the complete exit poll timeline and the data for all precincts polled and 2) a True Vote analysis based on historical and current independent data.

True Vote analysis indicates that Trump won the popular and electoral vote and that pre-election and exit polls were rigged for Clinton by inflating Democratic Party-ID. True Vote Models were based on a) national Gallup Party-ID voter affiliation and b) returning 2012 voters.

As usual, state and national exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote. This was the first election in which the media discussed election fraud – but avoided the obvious U.S. suspects from prior elections and the rigged voting machines, illegal and disenfranchised voters. Now that the MSM finally admits election fraud, they blame it on the Russians! And don’t report the proven fact that the primary was rigged for Clinton.

Party-ID
Nine Pre-election polls (average): 28.8 Ind – 38.7 Dem- 31.9 Rep.
Final National Exit Poll (CNN): 31 Ind – 36 Dem – 33 Rep.
Gallup national voter affiliation survey: 40 Ind -32 Dem -28 Rep. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=505041111

Nine Pre-election polls 
Clinton won the average: 45.8-43.3%
Trump won the average Gallup-adjusted poll: 44.4-42.9%
Trump won Independents: 43.6-33.8%

Final  National Exit Poll (forced to match the Recorded Vote)
Clinton won the reported vote: 48.2-46.2%.
Clinton won the National Exit Poll: 47.7-46.2%.
Trump won Independents by just 46-42% – a 5.8% discrepancy from the pre-election polls which he led by 9.8%. This anomaly is additional evidence that Trump won the True Vote.

Unadjusted exit polls (28 states)
Clinton won the polls: 49.6-43.6%
Clinton won the corresponding recorded vote: 49.3-45.2%

States not exit polled
Trump won: 50.4-43.7%

True Vote
Trump led the True Vote Model (three scenarios of his share of late undecided voters)
– Scenario I:  47.5-45.1%, 306 EV (50% undecided)
– Scenario II: 47.9-44.7%, 321 EV (60% undecided)
– Scenario III: 48.3-44.3%, 351 EV (70% undecided)

The True Vote Model analysis based on a plausible number of returning voters from the prior election  confirmed the three scenarios: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/university-of-virginia-study-20-of-trump-voters-were-former-obama-voters/

The National Election Pool of six media giants funds exit pollster Edison Research. The published results are always forced to match the recorded vote which implies zero election fraud. But there is always election fraud.  Historically, unadjusted state and national exit polls always favored the Democratic candidate, but there was  a RED shift from the Democrat in the poll to the Republican in the recorded vote.

The True Vote Model indicates that the 1988-2008 unadjusted exit polls were accurate.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 30, 2016 in 2016 election

 

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

The 2016 Election Fraud Quiz

Richard Charnin
Updated: 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

2016 Election Model (EM)

True or False

1 The Democrats stole the primary from Bernie
2 The GOP primary was virtually fraud-free
3 Plausible: Clinton would try to steal the presidential election
4 Implausible: Clinton’s CA margin is 5.8% higher than Obama in 2012
5 Voters were disenfranchised in the primaries

6 Millions of voters were disenfranchised in the election
7 Millions of illegals voted (see Link1Link2)
8 The Reported Vote is never equal to the True Vote due to Election Fraud
9 The MSM is for Hillary although she is under criminal investigation
10 Bernie’s crowds were nearly 100X larger than Clinton

11 Trump’s crowds were nearly 100X larger than Clinton
12 Exit pollster Edison Research works for the National Election Pool
13 Unadjusted exit polls proved election fraud since 1988
14 The MSM covered up 2000, 2004 elections and 2016 primary fraud
15 The MSM disparaged exit polls as conspiracy theory- until 2016

16 Corporate media pollsters rigged the pre-election polls for HRC
17 Corporate Media pollsters may have rigged the exit polls for HRC
18 The MSM never mentions the “third rail”: rigged voting machines
19 The MSM has focused strictly on voter disenfranchisement
20 Party ID (9 pre-election polls): 29 Ind, 39 Dem, 32 Rep ( Election  Model)

21 Party ID National Exit Poll: 31 Ind, 36 Dem, 33 Rep
22 Party ID  Gallup voter affiliation survey: 40 Ind, 32 Dem, 28 Rep 
23 Trump led Independents in 9 pre-election polls: 44-34% (Election Model)
24 Trump leads Independents in the National Exit Poll by just 46-42%
25  Fraction Magic  used to flip votes on central tabulators

26 Virtually all reported DRE vote flipping was Trump to HRC
27 The DNC not calling for a FULL audit indicates Trump won 
28 Jill Stein must have exceeded 1% of the national vote

 
24 Comments

Posted by on November 20, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags:

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud

Richard Charnin

Oct. 7, 2016

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud 

The 2016 Democratic primaries have finally awakened the public to Election Fraud. Millions of voters who were unaware or in denial came to realize that our election system was rigged and that the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

The media and its cadre of exit poll naysayers in the corporate media don’t dare mention the third-rail of American politics – election fraud. The media pundits remain silent on electronic vote rigging. They maintain that the exit polls are inaccurate and call truth-seeking activists conspiracy buffs.

The media is silent on the 2015 Year in Elections report, an independent research project by 2,000 elections experts from Harvard University and the University of Sydney. The report ranked the United States dead last in electoral integrity among established Western democracies in evaluating the  integrity of 180 national parliamentary and presidential contests held July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015 in 139 countries worldwide.

This book focuses largely on exit polls since they are the focus of virtually all naysayer arguments. But cumulative vote share analysis is based on actual vote counts and is a companion method. The two mathematical methods confirm each other and overwhelmingly prove election fraud. The State Department relies on exit polls in elections overseas to check for fraud if the discrepancies exceed 2%. There is no such check in the U.S.

Overwhelming evidence shows that Sanders won the primaries, despite the 3 million Clinton vote margin repeated endlessly in the media. He won the vast majority of 18-34 year-old voters.  His positions on Wall Street corruption, universal health care, eliminating student debt, etc. made him an overwhelming favorite among young voters.

 

 
13 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis