RSS

Tag Archives: 2016 Election Model

ELECTION MODEL VS. RECORDED VOTE

Richard Charnin
Nov.9, 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 Model  forecast exactly matched the 306-232  electoral vote – just like it did in 2008 and 2012. But  Obama did much better in the True Vote.  Trump won the True Vote by  351-187.  View the post:  2016 Election Model Forecast

Final poll and recorded votes shares
Clinton 47.7, Trump 47.5, Johnson 3.3, Stein 1.0
Who believes Jill Stein had just 1.0%? Who did her votes go to?

Before Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA):
Vote………..Clinton….Trump…..Margin…..Evote
Model………..42.9%…..44.4%…..1.5%…….306
Model………..45.4%…..46.9%…..1.5%…….306 (adjust to 100%)
Recorded……47.7%…..47.5%…..-0.2%……306

75% UVA to Trump:
Model………..44.3%…..48.5%…..4.2%…….351
Trump had a 96% popular vote win probability given a 2.5% margin of error.

Election Model vs. National Exit Poll (Party-ID):
Trump wins the EM by 1.5%.
Clinton wins the NEP by 0.4% (forced to match the recorded vote). 

Forecast vs. Actual 

Election Model Gallup Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Democrats 32% 89% 6% 2% 1%
Republicans 28% 5% 89% 3% 1%
Independents 40% 32.6% 43.9% 8.0% 5.0%
Total 94.6% 42.9% 44.4% 4.7% 2.6%
Total-100% 100.0% 45.4% 46.9% 4.9% 2.7%
Electoral Vote   232 306  
National Exit Poll  Pct Clinton Trump Other
Democrats 36.5% 89% 9% 2%
Republicans 32.5% 7% 90% 3%
Independents 31.0% 42% 48% 10%
Total 100.0% 47.8% 47.4% 4.8%
Electoral Vote   232 306

Election Model: Track Record
Exact EV forecast:
2008: Obama 365
2012: Obama 332
2016: Trump 306

 But the recorded votes were fraudulent.
They won the TRUE VOTE by much more…
2008: Obama 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV
2012: Obama 55.2%, 380 EV
2016: Trump 48.5-44.3%%, 351 EV ( 75% UVA to Trump):

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/president

Advertisements
 
27 Comments

Posted by on November 9, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

2016 ELECTION MODEL (Nov.3): Trump 98% Win Probability

2016 ELECTION MODEL (Nov.3): Trump 98% Win Probability

Richard Charnin
Nov.3, 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

The purpose of the Election Model  is to show the effects of changes in voter party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind). There are currently nine polls in the model. Each poll is shown using a) the actual poll shares and Party-ID weights and b) the actual poll shares using the Gallup party-affiliation survey. Gallup is the only poll dedicated to national voter party affiliation.

Undecided voters are allocated to derive the final adjusted TRUE poll share. Typically the challenger (in this case Trump) gets approximately 75% of the undecided vote.

Clinton leads Trump 44.9-43.3%  in the actual 9-poll average.

After adjusting the polls for the Gallup voter affiliation split (40I-32D-28R):
Trump leads Clinton 44.7-41.7% and by 336-202 EV before undecided voter allocation.
Trump leads Clinton 49.0-43.2% after undecided voter allocation. 
There is a 98% probability that Trump will win the popular vote.

THE MODEL SHOWS THAT THE PRE-ELECTION POLLS ARE OVERSTATING HILLARY CLINTON’S VOTE BY INFLATING THE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS COMPARED TO INDEPENDENTS AND REPUBLICANS.

As I have stated many times, each poll has a different party-ID.Theoretically, they should all have the SAME Party-ID since these are NATIONAL polls – and there is only ONE theoretical NATIONAL Party-ID split at any given point in time.

The popular Vote Win Probability and estimated Electoral Vote are calculated for each poll. The 2016 party-ID for each state is calculated by applying the  proportional  change  from the 2012 party-ID  to  the current Gallup 2016 survey Party-ID. The state votes  are calculated by applying the published national poll shares to the 2016 state party-ID. The electoral vote is then calculated.

The built-in SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS shows the effect of incremental vote shares on the total vote.

Those who have written models can appreciate the methodology. So can individuals who can apply basic logic.The model uses actual published data. If there is another quantitative modeler out there who has written a similar model to approximate the True poll shares, I would like to see it.

9-POLL AVERAGE Gallup Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 40.0% 4% 28% 44% 6%
Dem 32.0% 1% 91% 6% 2%
Rep 28.0% 1% 5% 90% 3%
Total 92.5% 2.2% 41.7% 44.7% 3.9%
Votes 119,448 2,840 53,863 57,736 5,009
EVote 538 0 202 336 0
Nov. 3 Party  ID
ACTUAL Ind Dem Rep HRC Trump
Ipsos 11.9% 43.5% 36.6% 42% 38%
IBD 27.4% 39.9% 32.7% 44% 44%
Rasmussen 32% 40% 28% 42% 45%
Quinnipiac 26% 40% 34% 47% 40%
Fox News 19% 43% 38% 44% 41%
CNN 43% 31% 26% 49% 44%
ABC 29% 37% 29% 47% 45%
Gravis 27% 40% 33% 46% 45%
LA Times 30% 38% 32% 43% 48%
Average 27.3% 39.2% 32.1% 44.9% 43.3%
GALLUP ADJUSTED Elect  Vote Popular Vote Undec.Alloc.
40I-32D-28R HRC Trump HRC Trump Win Prob Win Prob
Ipsos 37.9% 39.4% 232 306 73.4% 99.4%
IBD 40.9% 45.8% 180 358 96.8% 99.8%
Rasmussen 37.2% 47.4% 46 492 100.0% 100.0%
Quinnipiac 44.7% 40.8% 335 203 6.5% 35.8%
Fox News 39.6% 41.6% 218 320 79.9% 97.3%
CNN 48.6% 44.4% 335 203 7.0% 13.7%
ABC 46.4% 49.7% 202 336 86.5% 87.4%
Gravis 42.6% 45.6% 216 322 86.7% 99.1%
LA Times 40.7% 49.4% 54 484 99.9% 100.0%
Average 41.7% 44.7% 202 336 87.2% 98.1%
Sensitivity Analysis  9-Poll Average        
 Gallup 40I-32D-28R      
Trump % Rep
Trump 86.0% 88.0% 90.0% 92.0% 94.0%
% Ind Trump
48% 45.2% 45.8% 46.3% 46.9% 47.4%
44% 43.6% 44.2% 44.7% 45.3% 45.8%
40% 42.0% 42.6% 43.1% 43.7% 44.2%
Clinton
48% 41.2% 40.7% 40.1% 39.6% 39.0%
44% 42.8% 42.3% 41.7% 41.2% 40.6%
40% 44.4% 43.9% 43.3% 42.8% 42.2%
 Margin
48% 4.0% 5.1% 6.2% 7.3% 8.4%
44% 0.8% 1.9% 3.0% 4.1% 5.2%
40% -2.4% -1.3% -0.2% 0.9% 2.0%
Vote Margin (000)
48% 4,730 6,068 7,406 8,744 10,081
44% 908 2,246 3,583 4,921 6,259
40% -2,915 -1,577 -239 1,099 2,437
 9-poll average Vote Share Electoral Vote
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Total 41.7% 44.7% 202 336
AK 29.6% 49.9% 0 3
AL 36.7% 51.4% 0 9
AR 38.6% 49.0% 0 6
AZ 36.3% 47.9% 0 11
CA 44.7% 41.3% 55 0
CO 37.6% 46.8% 0 9
CT 42.6% 40.7% 7 0
DC 66.6% 23.7% 3 0
DE 46.9% 40.0% 3 0
FL 41.2% 45.2% 0 29
GA 39.8% 48.0% 0 16
HI 46.4% 42.1% 4 0
IA 37.9% 46.4% 0 6
ID 32.1% 54.9% 0 4
IL 45.3% 42.7% 20 0
IN 38.6% 49.0% 0 11
KS 32.4% 52.7% 0 6
KY 47.9% 42.2% 8 0
LA 36.6% 46.0% 0 8
MA 43.8% 37.4% 11 0
MD 51.0% 36.9% 10 0
ME 39.2% 44.3% 0 4
MI 43.5% 44.3% 0 16
MN 43.1% 45.1% 0 10
MO 39.7% 48.4% 0 10
MS 38.8% 49.4% 0 6
MT 35.3% 52.8% 0 3
NC 43.5% 42.6% 15 0
ND 37.6% 50.4% 0 3
NE 34.8% 52.4% 0 5
NH 36.2% 46.9% 0 4
NJ 40.9% 41.4% 0 14
NM 45.8% 41.4% 5 0
NV 41.7% 44.7% 0 6
NY 48.6% 37.9% 29 0
OH 41.0% 47.1% 0 18
OK 42.1% 46.8% 0 7
OR 41.6% 43.6% 0 7
PA 46.3% 42.6% 20 0
RI 47.0% 35.5% 4 0
SC 39.7% 48.4% 0 9
SD 36.6% 50.8% 0 3
TN 37.1% 50.7% 0 11
TX 39.2% 47.9% 0 38
UT 30.3% 57.8% 0 6
VA 40.5% 47.4% 0 13
VT 46.1% 41.2% 3 0
WA 42.5% 47.0% 0 12
WI 42.2% 46.1% 0 10
WV 47.7% 39.8% 5 0
WY 25.8% 62.5% 0 3
 
7 Comments

Posted by on November 3, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2016 Election Model- Nov.1 update

2016 Election Model- Nov.1 update

Richard Charnin
Nov.1, 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

Trump has pulled ahead in a number of polls: ABC,  LA Times.

 Clinton leads the 9-poll unadjusted average 45.0-43.2% with 283-255 EV.

The 2016 Election Model uses nine  polls adjusted for a) Gallup party-affiliation survey weights and b) undecided voters who typically break 75% for the challenger. Trump is the assumed challenger and HRC/Obama is the incumbent.

When the over-weighted Democratic party-ID split (27I-39D-32R) is replaced by the Gallup party affiliation  survey (40I- 32D- 28R) and  undecided voters are allocated:
Trump leads by  50.5-44.1%  with 398-140 expected EV.
Trump has a  98.6% popular vote win probability.
Trump is winning Independents by 45-33%

9-Poll………….……………….. Electoral Vote….. Trump Popular Vote
Average……. Clinton Trump…. Clinton.. Trump…Win Prob (3% MoE).
Poll…….…… 45.0%… 43.2%….… 283…… 255……..43%
Gallup Adj…. 42.1%… 44.5%….… 196…… 342……..82%
Undecided.… 44.1%… 50.5%……..140…… 398…….98.6%

ABC Poll- Unadjusted

Party-ID  Pct Stein  Clinton  Trump  Johnson
Ind 30% 4% 32% 55% 8%
Dem 39% 2% 88% 5% 0%
Rep 31% 0% 4% 89% 2%
Calc 100% 2.0% 45.2% 46.0% 3.0%
Poll 96% 2.0% 45.0% 46.0% 3.0%
Gallup 96.6% 2.2% 42.1% 48.5% 3.8%

ABC Poll- Adjusted to Gallup weights and undecided voters

Party-ID Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 40.0% 4% 32% 55% 8%
Dem 32.0% 2% 88% 5% 0%
Rep 28.0% 0% 4% 89% 2%
Total 96.6% 2.2% 42.1% 48.5% 3.8%
ABC  Sensitivity   Analysis
Ind 40.0% Dem 32.0% Rep 28.0%
Trump % Rep
Trump 85.0% 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 93.0%
% Ind Trump
59% 49.0% 49.6% 50.1% 50.7% 51.2%
55% 47.4% 48.0% 48.5% 49.1% 49.6%
51% 45.8% 46.4% 46.9% 47.5% 48.0%
Clinton
59% 41.6% 41.0% 40.5% 39.9% 39.4%
55% 43.2% 42.6% 42.1% 41.5% 41.0%
51% 44.8% 44.2% 43.7% 43.1% 42.6%
Vote Share Margin
59% 7.4% 8.5% 9.6% 10.8% 11.9%
55% 4.2% 5.3% 6.4% 7.6% 8.7%
51% 1.0% 2.1% 3.2% 4.4% 5.5%
Vote Margin (000)
59% 9,229 10,626 12,023 13,419 14,816
55% 5,238 6,635 8,032 9,429 10,825
51% 1,247 2,644 4,041 5,438 6,834
 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 1, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags:

2016 ELECTION MODEL -10/30 UPDATE – TRUMP SURGING

Richard Charnin
Oct. 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

The 2016 Election Model uses eight recent polls adjusted for party-ID weights and undecided voters.

Clinton leads the 8-poll average 45.4-42.5% with 309 EV. But when the over-weighted Democratic party-ID split is replaced by the Gallup party affiliation  survey and 75% of undecided voters are allocated to Trump, he leads by 48.2-44.1%  with a 336-202 EV lead..

The model indicates that Trump has a 92% popular vote win probability.

Note: Undecided voters typically break 75% for the challenger. Trump is the assumed challenger and HRC/Obama is the incumbent.

8-Poll…………………………….. Electoral Vote….. Trump Popular Vote
Average….. Clinton Trump….. Clinton.. Trump…Win Prob (3% MoE).
Poll………… 45.4%… 42.5%……. 309…… 229……..14%
Adjusted….. 42.8%… 44.2%…… 225……. 313……..70%
Undec……… 44.1%… 48.2%…….202…… 336……..92%

% Ind ……… 32.5%… 45.1%

Party ID.. Ind…. Dem…. Rep
Avg Poll.. 27.5% 39.0% 31.9%
Gallup…. 40.0% 32.0% 28.0% (adjusted)

ABC/Washington Post

 ABC/WP Party-ID Stein  Clinton  Trump  Johnson
Ind 29% 1% 38% 58% 3%
Dem 37% 1% 94% 5% 0%
Rep 29% 0% 4% 91% 2%
Total 95% 0.7% 47.0% 45.1% 1.5%
Poll 97% 2.0% 46.0% 45.0% 4.0%
Gallup Adj. 99.2% 0.7% 46.4% 50.3% 1.8%
Gallup Adj.  Party-ID Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 40% 1% 38% 58% 3%
Dem 32% 1% 94% 5% 0%
Rep 28% 0% 4% 91% 2%
Total 99.2% 0.7% 46.4% 50.3% 1.8%
Votes 128,021 930 59,905 64,914 2,272
EVote 538 0 187 351 0

Sensitivity Analysis: Adjusted Gallup-ID

Trump % Rep
Trump 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 93.0% 95.0%
% Ind Trump
62% 50.8% 51.3% 51.9% 52.4% 53.0%
58% 49.2% 49.7% 50.3% 50.8% 51.4%
54% 47.6% 48.1% 48.7% 49.2% 49.8%
Clinton
62% 45.9% 45.4% 44.8% 44.2% 43.7%
58% 47.5% 47.0% 46.4% 45.8% 45.3%
54% 49.1% 48.6% 48.0% 47.4% 46.9%
Margin
62% 4.8% 6.0% 7.1% 8.2% 9.3%
58% 1.6% 2.8% 3.9% 5.0% 6.1%
54% -1.6% -0.4% 0.7% 1.8% 2.9%
Vote Margin (000)
62% 6,196 7,630 9,064 10,498 11,932
58% 2,100 3,533 4,967 6,401 7,835
54% -1,997 -563 871 2,304 3,738

 

 
5 Comments

Posted by on October 30, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

THE 2016 ELECTION MODEL (8 PRE-ELECTION POLLS)

THE 2016 ELECTION MODEL (8 PRE-ELECTION POLLS)

Richard Charnin
Oct. 26,2016

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

This is the ONLY model which compares pre-election vote shares and corresponding Electoral votes to the adjusted Gallup affiliation survey (40 Ind-32 Dem-28 Rep).It will be updated as often as possible.

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

Clinton currently leads in 7 of the 8 published polls (Yellow cells). One (Gravis) is tied.
Using Gallup-adjusted weights (Blue cells), Trump leads in 4, Clinton leads in 4

The model uses the poll vote shares which match the published polls.
But Jill Stein must be doing much better than 1-3%.
THEREFORE HILLARY CLINTON MUST BE DOING WORSE THAN THE POLLS INDICATE.

Electoral votes for the Gallup adjusted weights:
…………Clinton Trump
Ipsos/Reuters 232 306
IBD 202 336
Rasmussen 80 458
Quinnipiac 354 184
Fox News 335 203
CNN 335 203
ABC/WashPost 459 79
Gravis 147 391

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 26, 2016 in 2016 election

 

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: , , , , , , ,

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

Richard Charnin
May 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

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 35.25-32.75%, 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 37.65-34.30%, 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% 37.65% 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% 34.30% 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% 3.35% 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
 
30 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis