RSS

Tag Archives: electoral vote

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

The MSM just interviewed the authors of a new book on the reasons for Clinton’s loss.  I commented to Chris Mathews and Brian Williams of MSNBC as well as FOX and CBS on how MSM pollsters rigged the pre-election polls for Clinton.

FYI: Your guests may have looked at my 2016 Election model. It was based adjustments to the final pre-election polls which were biased for Clinton. The Democratic Party-ID share was overstated at the expense of Independents who went solidly for Trump. In addition, there is strong evidence that votes were stolen from Jill Stein – by Clinton.

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

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

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

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

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 24, 2017 in 2016 election

 

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

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

 
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: , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis