RSS

Tag Archives: election fraud

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 1,2016

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

Ever since the 2000 election, exit poll naysayers have stated a) Edison Research claims that their exit polls aren’t designed to detect fraud; b) the sample size is too small and c) the questions are too lengthy and complex. 

Sample size? Big enough so that the MoE was exceeded in 12 of 25 Democratic primary exit polls – a 1 in 4 trillion probability. Questions too lengthy? You mean asking males and females who they voted for? Not designed to detect fraud?  That is true;  unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the corrupt recorded vote – and cover up the fraud

In his recent NY Times article,  Nate Cohn reverts to classic exit poll naysayer talking points that have been debunked long ago. I thought I was done debunking their posts.

Nate must be unaware of this fact: According to a recent Harvard study, the US ranks last (#47)  in election integrity. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/land-free-ranks-dead-west-fair-elections/

According to Nate, the exit polls are always wrong. He maintains that they were wrong in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that Bush won both elections fairly; there was no fraud. It is common knowledge that Bush stole both elections. This has been proven by  the mathematically impossible exit poll discrepancies, the True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote Share analysis. Unadjusted exit polls were close to the True Vote. The discrepancies were due to corrupted vote counts, not bad polling. 

It is important to keep in mind that historical  evidence of fraud is based on a recurring pattern: The vast majority of exit polls that exceed the margin of error  favor the progressive candidate. Virtually all exit polls shift to the establishment candidate in the recorded vote. 

Nate ignores or is ignorant of the overwhelming evidence proving that the Democratic primary was stolen. He cannot refute these facts:  

 Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  

– Sanders exit poll share exceed his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 11 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? Let’s review and debunk Nate’s comments.

  • I didn’t write about this during the primary season, since I didn’t want to dignify the views of conspiracy theorists. But they’re still going. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate.

Note the immediate use of the term conspiracy theorist; a sure sign of an Internet troll. But Nate is not a troll; he’s writing for the NY Times.

  • All of this starts with a basic misconception: that the exit polls are usually pretty good. I have no idea where this idea comes from, because everyone who knows anything about early exit polls knows that they’re not great. The 2000,2004, 2008- exit polls were biased. Kerry and Gore both lost.
  • In 2004,  the exit polls showed John Kerry easily winning an election he clearly lost — with both a huge error and systematic bias outside of the “margin of error.” The national exits showed Kerry ahead by three points (and keep in mind the sample size on the national exit is vastly larger than for a state primary exit poll) and leading in states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida — which all went to George W. Bush.
  • The story was similar in 2000. The early exit polls showed Al Gore winning Alabama, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina. Mr. Bush won these states by between six and 15 points.  
  • In 2008 the exit polls showed a pretty similar bias toward Barack Obama.
  • The same thing happened in 1996. It was actually even worse in 1992. The exit polls had Bill Clinton winning Texas, which went to George H.W. Bush, and basically everywhere. 

Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 by far greater margins than  recorded.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EWaKPDUolqbN7_od8sSTNMRObfUidlVPRBxeyyirbLM/edit#gid=15

The allegations are remarkably consistent. They go like this: Mr. Sanders did better in the early exit polls than he did in the final result. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton probably stole the election. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate and “well controlled” (where this phrase comes from, I don’t know).  Sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll: Differential non-response, Cluster effects, Absentee voters aren’t included  Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. 

The  differential response canard was disproved in 2004 by the exit pollsters own data:
Reluctant Bush ResponderEvaluation of Edison Mitofsky Election System 2004

Nate claims he has no idea where the  “misconception” that exit polls are accurate comes from.  They come from the experts cited below –  not from the controlled MSM. Nate calls these experts “conspiracy theorists”; his basic misconception is assuming  there is no such thing as Election Fraud. 

Nate states that the sources of exit poll errors are greater than in “ordinary” polls. His claim that exit poll non-response, cluster effect and absentee voters are not considered is false;  these factors are used in weighting the sample.  An exit poll cluster effect (typically 30%) is added to the theoretical margin of error. And of course, in an exit poll,  unlike pre-election polls, voters are asked who they just voted for.

What about sources and methods of election fraud? What is the motivation of  the MSM in forcing the unadjusted exit polls to match corrupted vote counts?

  • Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. With this kind of history, you can see why no one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do.

Nate expects rational viewers to believe that experts who study exit polls are conspiracy theorists because they have concluded that the polls are indicators of fraud. Does he truly believe these experts are delusional and/or incompetent in assuming that exit poll discrepancies (which exceed the margin of error) raise legitimate questions as to the likelihood of fraud? 

Pollsters ask males and females in foreign countries the question “Who Did You Vote For” to check for possible election fraud.  They ask the same question in the U.S. The difference is that here they essentially cover-up the fraud by adjusting the responses to match the recorded vote – and always assume ZERO fraud.

  • Why are exit polls tilted toward Sanders? Young voters are far more likely to complete the polls. Voter registration files are just starting to be updated. Sanders is a candidate with historic strength among young voters.

That is pure conjecture  and not based on factual evidence. But this is not conjecture: more Sanders than Clinton voters (young and old)  were disenfranchised. But Nate doesn’t mention that fact?  What about all of those independents and Democrats who never got to the polls because of  voided registrations, long lines and closing of polling places?

  • There are other challenges with exit polls in the primaries. Usually, the exit polls select precincts by partisanship — ensuring a good balance of Democratic and Republican precincts. This helps in a general election. It doesn’t do as much good in a primary.

Nate does not know how the precincts were selected. It’s proprietary information.   Why won’t the exit pollsters tell us which precincts were polled ? Since they don’t, we must assume they have something to hide. The pollsters (actually the MSM) do not want analysts to compare precinct votes to the exit poll response. It’s clear that they might find discrepancies which indicate a high probability of vote miscounts.

Exit poll naysayers won’t dare mention the THIRD-RAIL of American politics:  Election Fraud.  They do not even concede that election fraud is a likely cause of the exit poll discrepancies. They just assume the exit polls are always wrong and that there is no such thing as Election Fraud. How ridiculous is that?

 Election Fraud is as American as apple pie. Read what the true experts have to say who you arrogantly dismiss as Conspiracy Theorists. The true conspiracy is not a theory but a fact: the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

Election experts:

Debunking exit poll naysayers:

An Open Letter to Salon’s Farhad Manjoo
An Open Letter to John Fund (WSJ): Election Fraud, not Voter Fraud
An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com
Debunking Mark Blumenthal’s Critique of the RFK Rolling Stone Article
Response to the Mark Lindeman’s TruthIsAll FAQ
A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls
2016 Election fraud: Response to Joshua Holland 
Bob Fitrakis: flunking Joshua Holland in Stat 101

Election fraud posts since 2004:

Mathematical Modeling of Voting Systems and Elections: Theory and Applications
Why Won’t the National Election Pool Release Unadjusted Exit Polls?
Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media
Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries
Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis
April 4 Exit poll anomalies (continued)

NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY Democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

AZ primary: Voter suppression in Maricopa County
Super Tuesday: 5 Democratic primaries, exit poll discrepancies/win-probabilities
MI primary: Bernie did better than the recorded share indicates
MA Democratic primary; a stolen election

1988-2008 unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: 52-42% Democratic margin

1988-2012 Presidential Election Fraud Exit Poll Database
2004: Overwhelming Statistical Proof of a Stolen Election
Election Fraud Analysis: A Historical Overview
Election Fraud: An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis
Perspectives on an Exit Poll Reference Text

2014 Governor Election Models: TVM, CVS, VTM, Census votes cast
A Compendium of Election Fraud Links
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media

Footprints of Election Fraud: 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies
Monte Carlo Simulation: 2004 Presidential Pre-election and Exit Polls
An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis not required
The unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: closing the book on “False Recall”
True Vote Graphics

Unadjusted Exit Poll Probability Analysis Links
Election Fraud: Uncertainty, Logic and Probability
A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud
2000-2012: Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
2004: Simple Arithmetic Proof that Bush Stole the election

2004: The “Game” Debate
Why did the Networks Cancel Exit Polls in 19 States?
2000: Unadjusted Exit Polls indicate Gore won by 51-45% (5-7 million votes)
2004: True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis: Kerry Landslide
A Conversation about the 2004 Election

Simple Numerical Proof of 2004 Election Fraud
Returning 2000 and New Voters: Proof that Kerry Won
Online Book: Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide
2008: To believe Obama by just 9.5 million-votes,,,

Proof that Obama won by much more than 9.5 million votes
2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls Confirm the True Vote Model
1988-2008 State Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Analysis
The True Vote Model:  A Mathematical Formulation

True Vote Model: Probability Sensitivity Analysis
An Introduction to the True Vote Model
Election Fraud Quiz
Election Fraud Quiz II

 

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

Democratic Primary True Vote Model: Sanders has 52%

Democratic Primaries True Vote Model: Bernie has 52%

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 21, 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

This model estimates Sanders’ True Vote. The base case estimate is that Sanders had 52% of the total vote in primaries and caucuses.

It is important to note that Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his
1) recorded share  in 24 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  
2) recorded share by greater than the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on?

TRUE VOTE MODEL BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS

1.Sanders won the caucuses with 63.9% 
2.  10% of voters  were disenfranchised  (voter rolls, provisional ballots, etc.) .
3. Sanders won 70% of uncounted votes 
4. 15% of Sanders’ votes flipped to Clinton.

Sensitivity analysis tables display the effects of  flipped votes and uncounted provisional ballots  over a range of assumptions.

 Sanders NATIONAL VOTE   Sensitivity  
     Uncounted Ballots  
70% of Uncounted Votes to Sanders 5% 10% 15%
Machine counted Votes Flipped to Sanders   Sanders Total Share  
20% 51.7% 52.5% 53.2%
15% 51.2% 51.88% 52.6%
10% 50.6% 51.3% 52.0%

CALIFORNIA

Assuming a) 30% of California voters were disenfranchised, b) Sanders had 75% of provisional ballots, c) 10% of votes were flipped,  Sanders won CA with a 55% share.

On Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.4-43.6%.  Sanders leads in votes counted since ElectionDay by 52.3-47.7% .  This indicates that approximately 15% of Sander’s machine votes were flipped to Clinton.  Sanders  late vote share exceeded his Election Day share in every CA county. Greg Palast explains why Bernie won California.

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%

 

  Clinton Sanders Margin
  TOTAL RECORDED 53.47% 46.53% -6.95%
    TRUE VOTE 48.34% 51.66% 3.32%
           
CAUCUS Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
  36.1% 63.9% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
IA 50.1% 49.9% 50.1% 49.9% -0.3%
NV 52.7% 47.3% 52.7% 47.3% -5.3%
CO 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 18.8%
MN 38.4% 61.6% 38.4% 61.6% 23.3%
KS 32.3% 67.7% 32.3% 67.7% 35.5%
NE 42.9% 57.1% 42.9% 57.1% 14.3%
ME 35.6% 64.4% 35.6% 64.4% 28.7%
ID 22.0% 78.0% 22.0% 78.0% 56.0%
UT 20.7% 79.3% 20.7% 79.3% 58.6%
AK 18.4% 81.6% 18.4% 81.6% 63.3%
HI 30.1% 69.9% 30.1% 69.9% 39.8%
WA 27.1% 72.9% 27.1% 72.9% 45.7%
WY 45.3% 54.7% 45.3% 54.7% 9.4%
ND 28.5% 71.5% 28.5% 71.5% 43.0%
EXIT POLL   UNCTD ADJUST    
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 53.99% 46.01% 53.05% 46.95% -6.09%
VT 13.0% 87.0% 12.6% 87.4% 74.9%
NH 39.6% 60.4% 38.7% 61.3% 22.6%
WI 37.0% 63.0% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
NC 56.3% 43.7% 55.4% 44.6% -10.8%
FL 64.0% 36.0% 63.1% 36.9% -26.1%
SC 68.7% 31.3% 67.8% 32.2% -35.7%
OH 51.9% 48.1% 51.0% 49.0% -1.9%
MI 46.8% 53.2% 45.9% 54.1% 8.2%
VA 62.4% 37.6% 61.6% 38.4% -23.1%
MS 83.4% 16.6% 82.9% 17.1% -65.7%
GA 65.7% 34.3% 64.9% 35.1% -29.7%
TX 61.5% 38.5% 60.6% 39.4% -21.2%
IL 48.8% 51.2% 47.9% 52.1% 4.2%
IN 44.6% 55.4% 43.7% 56.3% 12.6%
PA 54.7% 45.3% 53.8% 46.2% -7.5%
NY 52.0% 48.0% 51.0% 49.0% -2.1%
MA 46.7% 53.3% 45.8% 54.2% 8.4%
CT 51.6% 48.4% 50.7% 49.3% -1.4%
AZ 37.0% 63.0% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
AL 73.2% 26.8% 72.4% 27.6% -44.8%
TN 63.2% 36.8% 62.3% 37.7% -24.6%
AR 66.0% 34.0% 65.2% 34.8% -30.3%
MD 65.6% 34.4% 64.8% 35.2% -29.5%
MO 48.1% 51.9% 47.2% 52.8% 5.7%
OK 47.8% 52.2% 46.8% 53.2% 6.3%
WV 39.9% 60.1% 39.0% 61.0% 22.0%
NO EXIT POLL   UNCTD / FLIPPED ADJUST    
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 54.96% 45.04% 45.77% 54.23% 8.45%
CA 54.22% 45.78% 44.62% 55.38% 10.76%
KY 50.2% 49.8% 41.5% 58.5% 16.9%
MT 46.6% 53.4% 38.8% 61.2% 22.5%
NJ 63.2% 36.8% 51.5% 48.5% -3.1%
NM 51.5% 48.5% 42.6% 57.4% 14.9%
SD 51.0% 49.0% 42.2% 57.8% 15.7%
LA 75.4% 24.6% 61.0% 39.0% -22.0%
DE 60.4% 39.6% 49.4% 50.6% 1.2%
RI 44.1% 55.9% 36.8% 63.2% 26.4%
OR 43.3% 56.7% 43.3% 56.7% 13.3%
DC 79.5% 20.5% 64.2% 35.8% -28.4%

Based on the following table of 25 Democratic primary exit polls (assuming confirmation that the WI and CT  polls exceeded the MoE), the probability P that at least 12 would exceed the MoE is
 P= 2.30E-13  or 1 in 4.3 trillion.
P= 1-binomdist (11,25,0.025,true)

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 
27 Comments

Posted by on June 19, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Connecticut Primary: Did Clinton really win?

The Connecticut Primary: Did Clinton really win?

Richard Charnin
June 13, 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 Exit Poll 
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

Clinton won Connecticut by nearly 18,000 votes (51.8-46.4%).

Are we to believe that CT had just a 1.4% discrepancy as shown in the adjusted CNN exit poll  while its NY neighbor had an 11.8% discrepancy ?

Assuming this ABC news preliminary exit poll screenshot is legitimate, how does one explain the 21% discrepancy between the poll and the final recorded  vote?

 

Image result for ABC News CT primary exit poll

The preliminary exit poll  is usually released around 4:30 pm and is  based on  approximately  two-thirds of total respondents. In the CT poll, there were 1234 respondents. Assuming 800 respondents,  the preliminary exit poll had a  4.5% margin of error. For Clinton’s share to increase by 12%  (nearly triple the MoE) for just 434 additional respondents is virtually mathematically impossible.

Vote shares  adjusted to match the final CNN exit poll

CNN Final    Exit Poll 1234 Respondents…  3.63% MoE  
Clinton Sanders Other
Men 39% 43% 55% 2%
women 61% 55% 41% 4%
Total 50.32% 46.46% 3.22%
2-party 51.99% 48.01%
Recorded 51.80% 46.40% 1.80%
Diff -1.48% 0.06% 1.42%
Votes 328,395 170,075 152,410 5,910
Margin 17,665

Vote shares  adjusted to match the preliminary ABC exit poll

Preliminary Exit Poll Clinton Sanders Other
Men 39% 25% 70% 5%
women 61% 50% 46% 4%
Total 40.25% 55.36% 4.39%
2-party 42.10% 57.90%
Recorded 51.80% 46.40% 1.80%
Diff -11.55% 8.96% 2.59%
Votes 328,395 132,179 181,799 14,417
Margin 49,620

Inline image

 
12 Comments

Posted by on June 13, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

Democratic primary: Sanders Approval ratings matching pre-election and exit polls indicate fraud

Democratic primary: Sanders’ approval ratings match to pre-election and exit polls indicate fraud

Richard Charnin
June 8, 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 Exit Poll 
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

This brief post will provide further evidence that Sanders is leading the total primary vote. It is based on the historical fact that approval ratings are highly correlated to national pre-election polls, exit polls and vote shares.

Clinton is leading by approximately 3 million votes (56-44%). But she has a 42% favorability rating. It is highly anomalous and counter-intuitive when compared to Sanders 49% rating.  Clinton’s  declining ratings are a source of worry for the DNC.

Current polls show that Sanders does better  than Clinton against  Trump.
Sanders vs. Trump  Clinton vs. Trump

The strong correlation of ratings and vote shares indicates Sanders is leading the True Vote by an estimated 1.7 million margin (53.5-46.5%). View Sanders’ favorable/unfavorable ratings.

Clinton favorable/unfavorable ratings – Real Clear Politics

Clinton Poll Date Sample
Favorable
Unfavorable
Spread
RCP Average 5/1 – 5/30 37.4 55.5 -18.1
Quinnipiac 5/24 – 5/30 1561 RV 37 57 -20
The Economist/YouGov* 5/20 – 5/23 2000 RV 43 54 -11
ABC News/Wash Post 5/16 – 5/19 829 RV 41 57 -16
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 5/15 – 5/19 1000 RV 34 54 -20
FOX News 5/14 – 5/17 1021 RV 37 61 -24
CBS News/NY Times 5/13 – 5/17 1109 RV 31 52 -21
Gallup 5/1 – 5/22 10598 A 40 54 -14
PPP (D) 5/6 – 5/9 1222 RV 36 55 -19

In a previous post,  the True Vote was estimated from actual caucus votes, exit polls, estimated manipulation of voter rolls, absentee and provisional ballots. Sanders leads by 51.5-48.5% (800,000 votes). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/democratic-primaries-is-clinton-leading-by-3-million-votes/

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries  exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000. The difference between his exit poll share and recorded share exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Sanders won 13 of 14 caucuses with an average 65.4% vote share and 9 of 36 primaries with a 43.9% average share. The probability of the 21.5% difference occurring by chance is 2.27% (the probability of election fraud is 97.73%).

Prob = 97.73% =normsdist (ZS), where ZS = 2.00 = .21/ sqrt(.135/36 +.109/14)
.135 is the standard deviation for the primaries
.109 is the standard deviation for the caucuses

Current polls show that Sanders does better  than Clinton against  Trump.
Sanders vs. Trump  Clinton vs. Trump

2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

In the 2004 election,  the Bush approval rating trend was highly correlated  (0.87) to his monthly pre-election polls. 

The UNADJUSTED STATE EXIT POLLS tracked closely to the STATE APPROVAL RATINGS. There was a near-perfect 0.99 CORRELATION  between the  polls and approval ratings.

 

 
27 Comments

Posted by on June 8, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?

Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?

Richard Charnin
May 28, 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 Exit Poll 
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

The 3 million Clinton vote margin is repeated endlessly by the media. This analysis shows that the number is grossly inflated. Sanders may very well be leading the popular vote and corresponding delegate count. This is an updated analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries.

This is why Sanders has done much better than his recorded vote:

– Actual votes in caucus states are not included in the count – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Exit polls indicated voting machines were hacked – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Voter rolls were manipulated – to the benefit of Clinton.
– Long lines and reduced polling stations reduced voter turnout – to the benefit of Clinton.

Sanders leads by approximately 780,000 votes (51.5-48.5%), assuming a) caucus votes are included, b) unadjusted exit polls represent the true vote, c) 10% of Sanders voters were disenfranchised and d) 5% of Clinton’s votes were fraudulent early/absentee ballots.  View the Democratic Primaries spread sheet.

Sanders won the caucuses easily. The largest states were MN, WA, CO. The actual votes were approximated by multiplying caucus vote shares by the state voting population, which is proportional to the electoral vote.

Votes for the primaries were calculated based on late exit polls. Sanders did approximately 4% better in the polls than in his recorded share. The National Election Pool discontinued exit polls after the Indiana primary.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries which were exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190.000. The difference between his exit poll share and recorded share exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? 

Exit polls and caucuses indicate that Sanders has won 30 of 44 states and leads the electoral vote by  259-193. Clinton’s margin is reduced from 3 million to 1.3 million based on actual caucus votes and unadjusted exit polls.

A conservative estimate is that  10% of Sanders voters were disenfranchised due to long lines, reduced polling stations, switched/dropped party registrations,  uncounted provisional ballots, etc.  And  5% of Clinton’s votes were due to absentee ballot stuffing. New York, Arizona, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts and the southern red states are prime examples.

After adjusting for actual caucus votes and exit polls:

Clinton has won 11 RED states (normally Republican) by 2.1 million votes (64-36%)- before voter rolls, absentee/provisional ballot fraud. Clinton leads RED states by approximately 1.6 million (61-39%).

Sanders leads the non-RED states by 1.1 million- before voter rolls, absentee/provisional ballot fraud. Sanders leads non-RED states by approximately 57-43%, a 2.4 million vote margin.

Sanders leads overall by approximately one million votes.

Recorded Vote

Clinton Sanders Margin Total Clinton Sanders Margin
12,985 9,981 3,004 22,966 56.5% 43.5% 13.0%

Exit Poll/ actual caucus votes

Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
12,864 11,816 1,048 52.1% 47.9% 4.2%

Other adjustments

  Sanders   Clinton   Margin
 Vote(000) Recorded 9,981 43.5% 12,985 56.5% -3,004
Exit Poll +Caucus  Adjusted  11,816 47.9% 12,864 52.1% -1,048
Other: Reg switch/flip+Absentee/ provisional Final Adjusted 12,998 (+10%) 51.5% 12,221   (-5%) 48.5% 777
TOTAL Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
PRIMARIES 56.5% 43.5% -13.0% 12,985 9,981 -3,004
RED STATES
South Carolina 68.7% 31.3% -37.3% 252 115 -137
Arkansas 66.0% 34.0% -32.0% 138 71 -67
Alabama 73.2% 26.8% -46.3% 283 104 -179
Tennessee 63.2% 36.8% -26.3% 231 135 -96
Virginia 62.4% 37.6% -24.9% 486 292 -194
Georgia 65.7% 34.3% -31.4% 498 260 -238
Texas 61.5% 38.5% -23.0% 868 543 -325
Louisiana 75.4% 24.6% -50.8% 222 72 -149
Mississippi 78.5% 21.5% -57.0% 182 36 -146
North Carolina 56.3% 43.7% -12.7% 607 470 -136
Florida 64.0% 36.0% -27.9% 1,064 600 -464

 

TOTAL Clinton Sanders Margin Clinton Sanders Margin
TOTAL (EP+Caucus) 52.1% 48.1% -3.8% 12,865 11,817 -1,048
RED States 64.2% 35.8% 28.3% 4,831 2,698 -2,133
OTHER States 46.8% 53.2% -6.3% 8,034 9,119 1,085
OTHER, net Disenfranchised  43.2% 56.8% -13.6% 7,632 10,031 2,398
RED, net Disenfranchised 60.7% 39.3% 21.5% 4,589 2,968 -1,622
Adjusted Total 48.5% 51.5% -3.1% 12,222 12,998 777
Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded vote share by at least the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries:AL AZ GA MA NY OH MS SC TX WI WV
The probability is 1 in 76.8 BILLION:
P = 1 – binomdist (10, 26, 0.025,true)
 
 Probability
26 Exit Polls
n P=1 in
1 2
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
Inline image

 

 

 
45 Comments

Posted by on May 28, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls; Kentucky and Oregon recap

The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls, Kentucky and Oregon recap

Richard Charnin
May 19, 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

The networks cancelled plans for exit polls for the remaining presidential primaries. Forget about the California and New Jersey primaries. Hell, they aren’t important.

  • 11 of 26 exit polls exceeded the margin of error for Sanders 
  • The probability is 1 in 76.8 billion = 1- binomdist (10,26,.025,true)
  • 24 of 26 exit polls shifted to Clinton in the vote 
  • The probability  is 1 in 190,000 = 1- binomdist(23,26,0.5, true)

The average exit poll margin of error for the 26 primaries was 3.52%. The MoE includes a 30% exit poll cluster factor (0.81) which is added to the theoretical 2.71% MoE. View a statistical comparison of exit poll discrepancies between the stolen 2004 presidential election and the 2016 Democratic Primaries.

Cancelling the exit polls is nothing new.  Just before the 2012 presidential election, the National Election Pool announced that 19 state exit polls would be cancelled. Obama was headed for another landslide, although the pre-election polls said it was a close race.  Why did the networks cancel exit polls in 19 states?

Unadjusted state exit poll data are a major component in calculating exit poll discrepancies. Having data for just 31 states made it impossible to compare the total weighted average of the state polls to the official recorded share. The  decision  was a blow to Election Integrity.

In six presidential elections from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the average unadjusted state and national exit polls by a 52-42%. The recorded margin was just 48-46%.

THE FRAUDULENT KENTUCKY PRIMARY

CLINTON won by 2000 out of  413,000 votes: 46.8-46.3%

Lundergan Grimes, the chief Elections officer for the state of Kentucky, told voters that electing Hillary Clinton is more important than doing her job.

Card readers malfunctioned and votes were fully erased from Pike County, Kentucky. This gave Clinton the lead. At one point, all Pike County data represented  all zeroes in the vote totals. Later, 20 percent of the total votes were missing and Clinton gained the lead.

WKYT reported that the AP had actually “erased all votes from Pike County”.  The numbers pushed Clinton back up by over 4,000. The Pike County Clerk’s Office said that there was an issue with one of their card readers, and it ended up causing them to have a delay in posting their numbers.

Election fraud was  reported in 31 counties. There were at least 76 calls to the hotline of the Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, Andy Beshear. According to Kentucky news station WSAZ, ‘Complaints included procedural and legal questions, voter assistance, [issues with] voting machines, voter identification, residency, election officials, electioneering, poll disruption and vote buying.’

CUMULATIVE VOTE SHARES- JEFFERSON COUNTY

As is virtually always the case, the establishment candidate (usually a Republican) gains cumulative precinct vote shares in the largest (usually Democratic) counties. It  is counter-intuitive. Jefferson is the largest county in KY and Clinton is the establishment candidate. Her cumulative vote share increased by 7.4% (55.9% to 63.3%) after 85% of smaller precincts were counted! The probability P of this vote spike occurring by chance is essentially ZERO: 

P =1 in 6.7 billion if we assume a 2% MoE in a poll of 90,000 respondents
P= 1.49E-10= normdist (0.559,0.633,0.02/1.96,false) .

 

 

OREGON

This was a closed primary.  Sanders won the election by 56-44%. Sanders had 53% of the first tier of votes at the 60% mark. He had 56% at the 96% mark. Therefore he had 67% of the 36% late votes. The calculation is basic algebra: X = 67.2% = (0.56-0.53*0.6)/0.36.

In 2014, the voter registration mix was Dem 37.8-Rep 29.9- Ind 32.3. There is no question but that the percentage of Independents is higher today.  Assuming Independents could have voted in the primary, Sanders would have won by approximately 65-35% which agrees with the 67% calculated above.

Registration Pct Adjusted Sanders Clinton
Dem (recorded) 37.8% 53.9% 56.0% 44.0%
Ind 32.3% 46.1% 75.0% 25.0%
Adjusted share 70.1% 100.0% 64.8% 35.2%

Oregon has an excellent track record of fair elections.  Here is the historical evidence.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY EXIT POLLS

Margin of error, Sanders 2-party  Recorded Vote, Exit Poll, Exit Poll – Recorded vote, Probability

Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit-Vote Prob of Fraud
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ            (Yavapai Cty) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%
Probability that at least n of 26 Exit Polls exceed the margin of error for Sanders
n P=1 in
1 2
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
Inline image
 
44 Comments

Posted by on May 19, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Primaries: Hillary wins the lottery

Richard Charnin
May 12, 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

Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share has exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: AL AZ GA MA NY OH MS SC TX WI WV. The probability P that at least 11 exit polls would exceed the MoE is calculated using the Binomial distribution.

P = 1 in 76.8 BILLION = 1-BINOMDIST(10,26,0.025,true)

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? This is an updated analysis of estimated probabilities of fraud in the Democratic primaries. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

The Margin of Error(MoE) is based on the number of respondents and  the vote shares:
MoE =1.3*1.96*sqrt (EP*(1-EP)/N),   where EP is the 2-party exit poll share, N is the number of respondents, 1.3 is the exit poll cluster factor adjustment. There is a 95% probability that the exit poll will fall within the MoE.

The probability is based on the difference  between the exit poll share (EP) and recorded share (RS) less the MoE. If  the difference is equal to the MoE, there is a 97.5% probability of fraud.The probability is calculated using the Normal distribution
P = normdist (EP, RS, MoE/1.96,true).

West Virginia

The results strongly suggest election fraud.  There were 734 respondents in the unadjusted exit poll and 763 in the adjusted final (forced to match the recorded vote). How could Sanders vote share decline by 6% with just 29 additional respondents? How could Other candidates vote share change by 7.5%?

Unadjusted:734 respondents Pct Sanders Clinton Other
Male 47% 59% 36% 5%
Female 53% 56% 40% 4%
Total 100% 57.4% 38.1% 4.5%
2-party  100% 60.1% 39.9%
Adjusted: 763 Forced to match recorded vote
Male 47% 53% 35% 12%
Female 53% 50% 38% 12%
Total 100% 51.4% 36.6% 12.0%
2-party  100% 58.4% 41.6%

This is how the exit pollsters forced a match to the IN recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll      
Unadjusted -1323 Pct Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted Forced to match the recorded vote
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

Summary Table

Exit poll margin of error, Sanders recorded vote share, Sanders exit poll,  difference between the exit poll and recorded vote and the estimated probability of fraud. Primaries in which the exit poll exceeded the recorded vote by at least the margin of error (at least 97.5% probability of fraud) are shown in bold.
Primary MoE Vote Exit Poll Exit -Vote Fraud Prob
AL 3.9% 19.8% 25.9% 6.1% 99.9%
AR 4.0% 31.0% 33.3% 2.3% 87.3%
AZ (Yavapai) 3.9% 40.9% 63.0% 22.1% 100.0%
CT 3.6% 45.6% 47.2% 1.7% 81.3%
FL 3.0% 34.1% 36.0% 2.0% 90.2%
GA 3.4% 28.3% 33.8% 5.5% 99.9%
IL 3.5% 49.1% 51.2% 2.0% 87.5%
IN 3.5% 52.8% 55.4% 2.6% 92.9%
MA 3.5% 49.3% 53.3% 4.0% 98.7%
MD 4.1% 33.3% 33.4% 0.1% 52.7%
MI 3.3% 50.8% 53.2% 2.4% 92.2%
MO 4.4% 49.9% 51.9% 2.0% 81.0%
MS 3.4% 16.6% 21.3% 4.7% 99.7%
NC 3.0% 42.8% 43.7% 0.9% 72.3%
NH 2.6% 61.4% 60.4% -1.0% 22.7%
NY 3.5% 42.1% 48.0% 5.9% 100.0%
OH 3.1% 43.1% 48.1% 5.0% 99.9%
OK 4.5% 55.5% 50.9% -4.6% 2.1%
PA 3.5% 43.6% 45.1% 1.5% 80.6%
SC 3.1% 26.1% 31.3% 5.2% 100.0%
TN 4.0% 32.9% 35.5% 2.6% 90.0%
TX 3.5% 33.7% 37.9% 4.2% 99.1%
VA 3.3% 35.4% 37.4% 2.0% 88.4%
VT 2.3% 86.3% 86.5% 0.2% 55.5%
WI 3.0% 56.7% 63.6% 6.9% 100.0%
WV 4.7% 51.4% 57.4% 6.0% 99.4%
 
Average 3.52% 42.8% 46.3% 3.6% 97.6%
 Inline image
 Probability that at least n of 26 exit polls would exceed the margin of error
n; 1 in
1 3
2 7
3 38
4 266
5 2,415
6 27,384
7 378,644
8 6,280,036
9 123,437,142
10 2,850,178,375
11 76,829,636,415
 
31 Comments

Posted by on May 12, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis