RSS

Tag Archives: 2016 presidential election

DID TRUMP ACTUALLY WIN BY 13 MILLION VOTES?

DID TRUMP ACTUALLY WIN BY 13 MILLION VOTES?

 

The left used the popular vote as an argument to de-legitimize Trump’s presidency. They  followed it up with the Russian investigation. “This is how they deceived the public”.

NSA contributed to this report which is still not a finished product. It indicates that Hillary flipped 7 million of Trump’s votes on voting machines. There is no way of vetting this intel; the future will prove if it is true.  The 13 million true vote margin would have put the ‘Hillary Clinton should be president” argument to rest.

The “Popular Vote” lie  allowed the “RussiaGate” lie to take place.  It planted doubt in  voters minds and enabled the false narrative that Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million. It helped introduce the media myth that Russian meddling won the election for  Trump.

The reality was that Hillary Clinton was widely hated; she got dominated in the popular vote and the electoral college. There is no Russia Scandal. How many months did the media run with “Hillary got the popular vote”? The fraud WILL be made public.

Dilley received more information about voter fraud, including the Democrat victory in Alabama  on January 31. ‘DHS’ is Department of Homeland Security: The  fraud will be exposed AFTER memo bombshells.“They have an independent review ongoing on top of their own review“ “It’s a precursor to Voter ID Laws pushed from POTUS on the back of HUGE evidence of fraud”. Dilley knows who’s doing the independent review. “It’s TOP TIER”.

Dilley speculates on Alabama: They’re building a case as a way to make sense of what happened nationwide in the general. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/2017-alabama-true-vote-75-turnout-of-of-clinton-voters-but-only-45-of-trump-voters/

The following adjustments to the recorded vote match the 13 million true vote margin (Trump wins by 51.8-42.4%):

………………….. Clinton…..Trump……Other
Vote… 136.22…65.72…….62.89………7.61
…………………. 48.25%….46.17%…….5.59%
Adjustments (millions)
Illegal….. -3.0…..-3.00……. 0.00……… 0.00
Disenfran 3.0……2.55……. 0.36……… 0.09
Vote Flip. 0.0….. -7.50……. 7.28……… 0.23
True Vote 136.22 57.77…. 70.52…….. 7.92
…………………. 42.41%.. 51.77% ….5.82%
Sensitivity Analysis
Trump Vote Flip to Clinton
……. 6.28… 7.28…. 8.28
Disen Trum Vote
4.0.. 69.64.. 70.64.. 71.64
3.0.. 69.52.. 70.52.. 71.52
2.0.. 69.40.. 70.40.. 71.40
Trump
4.0.. 51.13% 51.86% 52.60%
3.0.. 51.04% 51.77% 52.51%
2.0.. 50.95% 51.69% 52.42%
Clinton
4.0.. 43.06% 42.32% 41.59%
3.0.. 43.14% 42.41% 41.68%
2.0.. 43.23% 42.50% 41.76%
Margin
4.0.. 11.00…. 13.00…. 15.00
3.0.. 10.76…. 12.76…. 14.76
2.0.. 10.52…. 12.52…. 14.52
Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on February 13, 2018 in 2016 election

 

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 Presidential Election: True Vote Model Preliminary Analysis

2016 Presidential Election: True Vote Model Preliminary Analysis

Richard Charnin
July 2, 2015
Updated: Nov.8, 2015

My Website: Election Fraud and JFK
Look inside the book: Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Look inside the book:Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

It’s way too early to make any predictions 16 months in advance. And there is no reason to expect that the 2016 election will be fraud-free since the Democratic True Vote is always greater than the recorded vote. View sensitivity analysis scenarios to see the effects of 2016 vote shares and 2012 returning voter turnout assumptions.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x2WCPJautd_eZPIfkmW9W9vD2p1Zu0ZlvgqV_gUwLNM/edit#gid=11

On Election Day 2012, 117.4 million votes were recorded. Obama led by 50.34-48.07%. The National Exit Poll was published the day after the election. It was adjusted to match Obama’s Election Day share: 50.30-47.76%. However, 11.7 million Late votes were recorded after Election Day. Obama won the late vote by 60.2-39.8%.

The surge in Obama’s late votes increased his final margin to 51.03-47.19%. But he actually had a 55% True Vote share. The systematic red-shift struck again. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDQzLWJTdlppakNRNDlMakhhMGdGa0E#gid=29

The 2016 Election model will contain two components:
1- Recorded vote: A Monte Carlo simulation using state win probabilities based on the final pre-election polls.
2- True Vote Model: based on alternative assumptions of returning voter turnout and projected vote shares.

There are two calculation methods:
Method 1: returning 2012 voters based on the recorded vote- Obama had 51%.
This calculation assumes the election will be fraudulent since the prior recorded vote was fraudulent. Therefore, returning voter estimates are implausible. In any case, the model generates vote share scenarios based on various assumptions of Obama and Romney voter turnout.

Method 2: returning voters are based on the 2012 True Vote – Obama had 55%.
This calculation assumes that the election will be essentially fraud-free since the estimated number of returning voters is plausible.

Base case assumptions assume:
1) 2012 recorded or True Vote shares
2) 1.25% annual voter mortality (total 5%)
3) 95% turnout of living Obama and Romney voters.

Track record:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 2, 2015 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis