RSS

Tag Archives: election fraud

2016 National Exit Poll vs. True Vote Model: How did you vote in the 2012 election?

Richard Charnin
July 9, 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 2008 presidential election was the last one in which the National (NEP) and state exit polls asked “How Did You Vote in the Last Election?”. A plausible reason is that the question provided clear proof of fraud in all elections from 1988-2008. The How Voted crosstab matrix required more returning Bush voters than were still alive in order to match the bogus recorded vote in 1992 (119% turnout), 2004 (110%) and 2008 (103%). Conversely, the True Vote Model, which used a feasible estimate of returning voters, confirmed the unadjusted, pristine state and national exit polls.

Since the “How Voted” question was not asked, we can derive a crosstab to match the 2016 recorded vote using assumptions for 2012 returning voter turnout and 2016 vote shares.

General Assumption: 1% Annual voter mortality

2016 Estimated National Exit Poll assumptions
Equal 96% turnout of living 2012 Obama and Romney voters.
Clinton wins 87% of returning Obama and 7% of returning Romney voters.
Trump wins 7% of returning Obama and 88% of returning Romney voters.
Trump wins new voters by 48-47%.
Clinton wins by 2.9 million recorded votes, 48.3-46.2%.

2016 True Vote Model assumptions
Voter turnout: 92% of living Obama voters and 96% of Romney voters
Clinton wins 82% of returning Obama and 7% of returning Romney voters
Trump wins 10% of returning Obama and 88% of returning Romney voters
New voters: Trump and Clinton 45% tie
Trump wins the base case scenario by 3.6 million votes, 47.8-45.1%.

2016 TVM rationale
– 96% Romney voter turnout vs. 92% for Obama: approximately 2.5 million living Obama voters were angry Sanders voters who did not vote.
– Clinton’s 82% share of returning Obama voters: approximately 2.6 million Obama voters were angry Sanders voters who defected to Jill Stein, Trump and Johnson.

NATIONAL EXIT POLL – is always forced to match the recorded vote
“HOW VOTED IN 2012” was not asked in the 2016 NEP.
It would have looked something like this…
2016….. Mix Clinton Trump Other
Obama…. 44.6% 87% 7% 6%
Romney… 41.2% 7% 88% 5%
Other…… 1.5% 45% 45% 10%
DNV….. 12.6% 47% 48% 5.4%

Total…. 100% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5%
Vote…. 136.2 65.7 62.9 7.6

TRUE VOTE
2012….. Mix Clinton Trump Other
Obama…. 42.7% 82% 10% 8%
Romney… 41.2% 7% 88% 5%
Other…… 1.5% 45% 45% 10%
DNV…… 14.5% 45% 45% 10%

Total…. 100% 45.1% 47.8% 7.1%
Vote…. 136.2 61.5 65.1 9.7

Sensitivity analysis
The tables display Trump’s total vote share and margin over a range of 25 scenarios of his  shares of returning Obama (8-12%) and Romney voters (86-90%). He wins 24 of the 25 scenarios. In the worst case scenario, Trump loses by 1 million votes (46.9-46.1%). In the best case, he wins by 8 million (49.5-43.5%). Trump wins the base case scenario by 3.6 million votes, 47.8-45.1%.

View the spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1768941212

 
 

Tags: , , , ,

Sanders won the CA primary with at least 53% – a 14% discrepancy from the recorded vote

Richard Charnin
Feb. 9, 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

This analysis shows that Sanders had a conservative 53.2% in the California primary. His recorded share was just 46.6%.

Knowing the extent of the fraud in the primary, are we to believe that Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million over Trump? Are we to believe the corporate media shills who are in the tank for Hillary and claim there is no evidence of fraud and that Trump is just blowing smoke?

The California primary vote timeline indicates it was stolen in early voting before 5pm on June7.

– On Election Day June 7, prior to 5pm, Sanders had 36.6% of 1.52 million recorded absentee votes by mail (VBM). But a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles VBM compared to the actual results.

Ballots from likely Clinton voters were counted first while unaudited heavy batches of Sanders’ votes came in later.

On June 7, from 5pm to poll closing, Sanders had 48.9% of 1.95 million ballots. From June 8 to July 7, Sanders had 52.7% of 1.65 million ballots.

But we must also consider nearly 1 million uncounted ballots:
– Sanders had an estimated 66% of 100,000 provisional ballots.
– He had an estimated 71% of one million NPP (no-party preference) ballots.

THREE SCENARIOS
If Sanders had an early VBM share of
a- 47% he would have won CA with 53.2% (400,000 votes).
b- 42% he would have won with 52.0% (250,000 votes).
c- 36.6% (reported) he would have won with 50.7% (87,000 votes).

Spreadsheet calculations: Go to cell M88. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420

 
3 Comments

Posted by on February 9, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

More clues on Election Fraud from Humboldt Cty, CA

Richard Charnin
Jan.1, 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

Humboldt is the gift that keeps on giving. It is the only county in the U.S. which uses an Open Source System (TEVS) to count and audit votes. The system was installed in 2006.

In the CA primary, Bernie Sanders had his highest margin (71%) in Humboldt. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/bernie-landslide-in-ca-humboldt-cty-open-source-system/

In 2008-2012, Obama did 2.58% better in Humboldt than he did in the full state. This is to be expected. But in 2016, Clinton did 1.75% worse in Humboldt. Her 4.26% increase over Obama in CA represents a 1.2 million increase in margin. Was she really that popular? Or was her vote padded?

In the 2016 presidential election, Jill Stein’s 6.1% share in Humboldt was her highest in the state – just like it was for Bernie. Clinton’s 56% share in Humboldt ranked #20 of 58 California counties. Stein’s average in the 19 counties was 2.3%. Clinton averaged 68.0%. So how come Stein did so much better in Humboldt than she did in the other 19 liberal counties?

Could it be Humboldt’s nearly foolproof Open Source voting system? Could it be that fraud was prevented in Humboldt? Could it be that nearly 2/3 of Stein’s votes were blue-shifted to Clinton? Could it be that Clinton’s 61% CA share was inflated by at least 4%? Note that 4% of 14 million votes is 560,000.

Keep in mind that the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote. There is always election fraud. But in Humboldt, we can assume that the recorded vote is the True Vote due to its near foolproof Open Source system. There is no reason to believe Clinton’s recorded CA vote is legitimate.

Humboldt Democratic 2-party share
1988-2004 Before TEVS: 57.2%
2008-2016 After TEVS: 64.6%

California Presidential share
……Dem… Rep…Other
2008 60.21% 36.46% 3.33%
2012 60.24% 37.12% 2.64%
2016 61.73% 31.62% 6.66% HRC margin 7% over Obama?

Humboldt Presidential share
……Dem… Rep…Other
2008 62.05% 33.95%.4.00%
2012 59.68% 32.61% 7.72%
2016 56.04% 31.01% 12.95% HRC loses 3.64% vs Trump 1.60%

Democratic 2-party Presidential share
……CA….Humboldt..Diff
2008 62.28% 64.64% 2.36%
2012 61.87% 64.67% 2.80%
2016 66.13% 64.37% -1.75% HRC gains 4.26% over Obama?

…………………. Stein Clinton
1 San Francisco.. 2.4% 85.0%
2 Alameda……… 2.7  78.7
3 Marin…………..2.2  78.1
4 San Mateo……..1.6  75.7
5 Santa Cruz……..3.5  73.9
6 Santa Clara…….1.8  72.7
7 Los Angeles……2.2  71.8
8 Sonoma……….. 3.2  69.4
9 Contra Costa…..1.9  68.5
10 Imperial……….1.6  67.9
11 Monterey………2.1  66.8
12 Yolo…………….2.2 66.7
13 Napa……………2.1  63.9
14 Solano………….1.7  61.6
15 Santa Barbara ..2.1  60.6
16 Mendocino…….5.6  58.9
17 Sacramento….. 1.8  58.3
18 San Benito……. 1.7 57.1
19 San Diego………1.8 56.3
20 Humboldt……..6.2 56.0

View this spreadsheet of 58 county votes. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1462588532

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1010903783

No automatic alt text available.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 1, 2017 in 2016 election

 

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 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: , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , ,

California Primary: Bernie leads in Vote Counts since Election Day

California Primary: County Votes 

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 21, 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

Richard Charnin

On Election Day (6/7) Hillary led by 56.37 – 43.63%.
Since Election Day, Bernie leads by 52.66 – 47.34%.  

Bernie’s vote share has increased over his Election Day share in every county.

In Humboldt County, the only county with Open Source Vote counting software, Bernie has a 71% two-party share, his highest in the 58 CA counties. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/county/humboldt/

Period………….. Votes………………Sanders……….Clinton
Elec Day (6/7)… 3,442,623………1,502,043………1,940,580
…………………………………………..43.63%…………56.37%
Current (7/6)…..5,097,033………2,373,218………2,723,815
…………………………………………..46.56%………… 53.44%
6/8 to 7/6……….1,654,410………..871,175…………783,235
…………………………………………..52.66%…………47.34%

Election Day and Post-election Democratic primary votes and shares :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1323002420

Simple California Vote share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

 

Cumulative Vote Share (CVS) analysis  of California counties, sorted from smallest to largest, confirms the likelihood of fraud. In virtually every CVS analysis, the establishment candidate (Clinton) gains vote share. One would intuitively expect that  the more progressive candidate (Sanders) would slightly gain cumulative vote share in the largest (typically liberal) urban and suburban counties. The fact that Sanders does well in smaller, (typically conservative) counties, is further indication of voter suppression, ballot destruction and vote flipping in larger counties.

J.T. Waldron in electionnightmares.com:  After painstaking construction of spreadsheet data comparing batches of California 2016 Primary Election ballots counted from election day until now, elections expert John Brakey has found a pattern that is consistent with a technique that is aptly named the “strip, stack and hack” approach to election fraud.

Brakey believes California election officials, in conjunction with their vendors, managed to “strip” the vote by rendering people ineligible to use a regular ballot prior to the election, “stack” likely Clinton voters to be counted first on election day and “hack” the batch of votes to be counted later without an audit.

After more than 700,000 California voters were stripped from being counted in a timely manner when forced to vote on a provisional ballot, vote-by-mail ballots from likely Clinton voters were stacked into the piles to be counted first. This enabled the establishment to report a huge 26% election night lead by Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, which would quietly be reduced to a still shrinking single digit lead as remaining ballots continue to be counted.

A San Diego County Registrar insider claims that hundreds of thousands of California Democratic primary provisional ballots were illegally destroyed   in a covert shredding operation.  A consignment of boxes was delivered to the San Diego Registrar’s Office at 5600 Overland Ave in the morning and an “oversized shredding van” arrived minutes later and took the boxes away. The boxes were carried from the building to the vehicle by men she had never seen before wearing dark blue overalls.

In addition, http://embols.com/2016/07/06/ballots-with-sanders-votes-covered-with-white-out-filmed-by-election-monitors-in-san-diego/ “Citizen election monitors in San Diego have captured film of ballots which have been tampered with, with white-out erasing only Sanders votes, sometimes with part of Bernie Sanders’ first name obscured as well. In the film, a monitor reports that almost half the ballots in the box of ballots she witnessed had been so altered, always against Sanders. 

The mainstream media has yet to report on the startling discovery.

After the Illinois Democratic primary in March, a citizens’ watchdog group monitoring an audit of the votes says they witnessed vote totals being tampered with to benefit Hillary Clinton.

In other video captured by citizen reporters and election monitors in San Diego, an election official attempts to keep monitors away from the windows of a room where “provisional” ballots are being counted by officials, which are ballots which were cast mostly by independent voters in the primary. At one point an election monitor, a woman, is told by an official who identifies herself as “Karen Mayer,” to keep her voice down, as she questions what officials through the glass in an off-limits room are doing in the back. The woman tells the official that “you guys are violating the election code, and I’m not going to shut up about it.”

In a follow up interview of another official, “Charlie Loomis,” the IT manager, the manager confirms that it is indeed white-out that can be seen on the ballots, and that the ballots are being “manipulated.” The IT manager goes on to say that, as a San Diego official, he has no control over this, as the white-outs are a result of Democratic party rules on how the ballots, which are provisional ballots, must be processed. Mr. Loomis say he has “nothing to do with” those rules. Mr. Loomis did indicate, however, that after the white-out process, the ballots are “run through the scanner again.”

View a running  total  of the number and percent of newly added voters (does not include 0.8% other Democratic candidates).

Sanders 2-party Vote Share
* recent update

Sanders Election Day Current Difference
CALIFORNIA 43.63% 46.56% 2.93%
ALAMEDA 46.0% 51.7% 5.7%
ALPINE 54.0% 54.8% 0.8%
AMADOR 47.4% 48.7% 1.3%
BUTTE 59.6% 62.7% 3.1%
CALAVERAS 47.6% 49.5% 1.9%
COLUSA 47.2% 49.2% 2.0%
CONTRA COSTA* 40.2% 43.0% 2.8%
DEL NORTE 56.6% 58.8% 2.2%
EL DORADO 47.8% 49.7% 1.9%
FRESNO 39.7% 43.3% 3.6%
GLENN 49.8% 52.4% 2.6%
HUMBOLDT* 68.7% 71.0% 2.3%
IMPERIAL 32.2% 34.2% 2.0%
INYO 55.9% 56.7% 0.9%
KERN 41.4% 44.8% 3.4%
KINGS 39.4% 40.9% 1.5%
LAKE 52.9% 52.9% 0.0%
LASSEN 52.7% 55.7% 3.0%
LOS ANGELES 42.4% 45.1% 2.7%
MADERA 42.9% 45.5% 2.6%
MARIN 42.2% 43.4% 1.3%
MARIPOSA 52.2% 55.1% 3.0%
MENDOCINO 63.4% 67.0% 3.6%
MERCED 42.0% 46.1% 4.1%
MODOC 53.8% 55.4% 1.6%
MONO 54.8% 56.5% 1.7%
MONTEREY 43.0% 46.7% 3.8%
NAPA 39.3% 46.2% 6.9%
NEVADA * 60.2% 61.4% 1.2%
ORANGE 44.9% 47.7% 2.8%
PLACER* 42.5% 45.3% 2.8%
PLUMAS 55.0% 54.9% 0.0%
RIVERSIDE * 39.4% 43.3% 3.9%
SACRAMENTO 42.6% 44.9% 2.3%
SAN BERNARDINO 42.1% 44.7% 2.6%
SAN BENITO 41.6% 45.1% 3.5%
SAN DIEGO * 44.5% 48.1% 3.6%
SAN FRANCISCO 44.1% 46.1% 2.0%
SAN JOAQUIN 39.4% 42.7% 3.3%
SAN LUIS OBISPO 49.0% 52.9% 4.0%
SAN MATEO 38.8% 40.8% 2.0%
SANTA BARBARA* 49.4% 52.8% 3.4%
SANTA CLARA 39.1% 42.1% 3.1%
SANTA CRUZ * 55.6% 59.3% 3.7%
SHASTA 51.1% 53.6% 2.5%
SIERRA 56.4% 57.0% 0.7%
SISKIYOU 59.2% 61.2% 2.0%
SOLANO 42.7% 44.2% 1.5%
SONOMA 48.7% 48.7% 0.0%
STANISLAUS 44.1% 47.9% 3.8%
SUTTER * 44.4% 46.3% 1.8%
TEHAMA 50.9% 52.8% 1.9%
TRINITY 62.0% 64.3% 2.3%
TULARE * 40.7% 44.6% 3.9%
TUOLUMNE 47.9% 51.1% 3.2%
VENTURA 45.7% 48.4% 2.7%
YOLO 47.9% 51.5% 3.7%
YUBA 52.4% 53.7% 1.3%

 

 

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 6, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis