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

Richard Charnin
April 24, 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 MSM just interviewed the authors of  Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign 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 not have looked at my 2016 Election model. It was based adjustments to 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/

 

 

 

 

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 , using Gallup Party-ID and the average of 9 pre-election polls, exactly matched the 306-232  electoral vote.  But Trump won the True Vote by  351-187.   

National Exit Poll matched to the recorded vote
Clinton 48.2, Trump 46.1, Johnson 3.2, 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……48.2%…..46.1%…..-2.1%……306

75% UVA (undecided voters allocated to Trump):
True Vote……44.3%…..48.5%…..4.2%…….351
Trump had a 96% popular vote win probability assuming 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  2.1% (forced to match the recorded vote). 

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

Recorded	NEP Pct	Clinton	Trump	Other
Democrats	36%	90%	8%	2%
Republicans	33%	8%	88%	4%
Independents	31%	42%	46%	10%
Total	100%	48.2%	46.1%	4.8%
Electoral Vote		232	306

Election Model: Track Record
Recorded EV forecast vs. True Vote:
2008: Obama 365 EV vs. Obama 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV
2012: Obama 332 EV vs. Obama 55.2%, 380 EV
2016: Trump 306 EV vs. Trump 48.5-44.3%, 306 EV (75%  UVA to Trump)

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

 

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