RSS

Tag Archives: exit polls

2016 Election: Introduction to my upcoming book

Richard Charnin
Nov. 13, 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

Introduction

The mainstream media pundits claim that Clinton won the primary and presidential election by three million votes. It’s a myth. The pundits fail to consider the FACT that the recorded vote is ALWAYS fraudulent. A True Vote Model analysis indicates Trump won the popular as well as the electoral vote.

The pundits always assume that the recorded vote is accurate but never consider the fraud factor. The historical statistical evidence is conclusive: every election is fraudulent. The recorded vote is NEVER equal to the true vote.
The establishment-dominated media was in the tank for Hillary Clinton in the primary and general elections.

The claim that Clinton won the popular vote is quoted ad nauseam in the media, academia and by corrupt politicians. They persist in promoting the fully discredited meme of Russian “hackers” stealing the election from Clinton. But there is not one iota of proof. The Russians had nothing to do with it. Included in the appendix are two memos from the Veteran Intelligence Professional for Sanity (VIPS) to Obama and Trump which prove that the Russians did not hack the vote. Election Fraud is always an inside job.

Sanders and Trump drew much larger crowds than Clinton. They won the unscientific online polls by large margins. Trump’s Republican base was solid. Clinton’s Democratic base was fractured by defecting Sanders voters.

Millions of Sanders primary voters stayed home or voted for Jill Stein or Donald Trump. Trump won Independents by a solid majority (at least 8% higher than Clinton). There was a surge of late deciders to Trump after Labor Day.

Former interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile delivered a bombshell in her new book “Hacked”. She claimed that the Hillary Clinton campaign seized control of the Democratic Party as far back as August 2015. Well, this was not a bombshell to researchers who have claimed that the primary was rigged from Day One.

In 77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud, I provided mathematical evidence that the primary was rigged for Clinton. The exit poll discrepancies were in one direction only: they showed that Sanders did consistently better in the polls than the recorded vote. It was solid proof that the primaries were rigged.

But just because the unadjusted exit polls were quite accurate in prior elections and the 2016 primary does not mean they were in the presidential election.

The six media corporations (the National Election Pool) who fund exit pollster Edison Research had to show that Clinton won the unadjusted polls to support her win of the bogus recorded popular vote.

My Election Model forecast that Trump would win 306 recorded electoral votes was based on adjustments to nine final pre-election polls. The forecast indicated that he would have 350 True EV in a fraud-free election.

The 2008, 2012, 2016 pre-election models exactly forecast the recorded electoral votes.

In 2016, Democratic Party-ID was over-weighted in the pre-election and exit polls at the expense of Independents. But a post-election exit poll analysis based on Gallup-adjusted voter affiliation confirmed the forecast model in which Trump did much better than the unadjusted exit polls indicated. The Gallup national voter affiliation survey showed that Independents comprised 41% of the electorate on Election Day, along with 31% Democrats and 28% Republicans.

Analysis of presidential elections from 1988-2008 indicated that exit poll discrepancies (“red-shift”) favored Republican candidates in every election. The accuracy of unadjusted exit polls was confirmed using True Vote Models. But the models could not confirm the unadjusted polls in 2016.

What if the pollsters had to show that Clinton won the exit polls to cover up that she rigged the election? Since the exit posters always force state and national unadjusted exit polls to match the bogus recorded vote, why trust them to do unbiased polling in the general election? They never provide precincts polled and actual respondent data. To assume that the unadjusted exit polls were pristine in 2016 just because they were fairly accurate in prior elections is not logical.

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 13, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Clinton’s popular vote “margin” is a myth: the Recorded vote is always fraudulent

Richard Charnin
Dec. 10, 2016; Updated 8/6/2017

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

Clinton’s popular vote “margin” is a myth: the Recorded vote is always fraudulent.

Those who cite Clinton’s lead in the popular vote fall into the same old media-driven TRAP. They fail to realize the FACT that the recorded vote is ALWAYS fraudulent – as it was in this election. The True Vote Model indicates Trump won the popular as well as the electoral vote.

This recent post from June 24, 2017 outlines the reasons why Trump won: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/trump-won-the-true-vote-clinton-won-the-fraudulent-recorded-vote/

The primaries were rigged in favor of  Clinton. The odds: 77 billion to one – based on exit poll discrepancies. But the 2016  election was different. The corporate media (the National Election Pool) which funds the pollster’s pre-election and exit polls were heavily biased in favor of Clinton.

Election analysts calculated that Clinton won the  Electoral vote by 302-236 based on unadjusted exit polls.  The states that Clinton won the unadjusted exit poll  and Trump won  the recorded vote were WI, NC, MI and PA. The analysts failed to consider that Trump won the MN unadjusted exit poll, and therefore Clinton won by 292-242 EV.  But the analysts assumed that the exit polls were fairly conducted.  Just because unadjusted exit polls were excellent indicators of fraud in the past does not mean that they were in 2016.  

The exit polls were the impetus for recounting MI, WI and PA. But why only recount the states that Trump narrowly won? I asked the question in this post: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/the-2016-presidential-recounts-why-not-add-these-six-states/

 The  polls look suspicious in states where they closely matched the recorded vote:  CA IL MI TX MN WA NY. Clinton’s CA margin exceeded Obama’s by an implausible 6%. An unknown number of illegals were encouraged to vote by Obama. http://tdmsresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-Election-Table_Nov-17.-2016.jpg

Unadjusted and reported exit polls were compared to an estimate of the True Vote. The True Vote Model was based on the Gallup voter affiliation national survey to estimate each state’s Party-ID.  The unadjusted polls over-weighted Democratic party-ID and Clinton’s share of Independents.  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/23/2016-election-scenario-analysis/

2016 Election Model:  27 Adjusted state exit polls vs. Recorded Vote vs. True Vote + 24 states recorded vote https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

These tables display a summary of 9 states. They show that a) the Democratic Party-ID share was inflated compared to the estimated Party-ID based on the Gallup survey and b)  the unadjusted exit polls over-weighted Clinton’s share of Independents compared to the Reported and True Vote. As a result, Clinton’s unadjusted vote share was inflated, showing her winning the  unadjusted exit poll average by 2.6% while losing the Reported and True Votes by 3.5% and 3.6%, respectively.

Unadj EP   Reported   True Vote  (Gallup) 
Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 48.4% 45.8% 46.1% 49.6% 44.6% 48.2%
Diff -2.6% 3.5% 3.6%
OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 44.1% 49.2%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 45.9% 46.6%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 44.6% 46.4%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.8% 45.8%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.7% 45.3% 47.8%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 41.5% 51.7%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 41.1% 50.6%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.9% 47.7%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 44.9% 48.1%

9-State Summary

9-states Reported     Gallup 
Party-ID Dem Rep Ind Dem Rep Ind
 Average 36% 34% 30% 32.9% 28.9% 38.2%
Average   Unadj EP   Reported   True Vote  
Share of Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Ind 47.7% 40.2% 39.0% 52.8% 36.3% 50.7%
Vote 48.4% 45.8% 46.1% 49.6% 44.6% 48.2%

1988-2008

An analysis of 274 state and 6 national unadjusted exit polls from 1988-2008 prove systemic election fraud beyond any doubt (the odds are trillions to one) as well as in the 2016 primaries.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

Recall the 2004 stolen election in which Bush defeated Kerry by 50.7-48.3% ( 3 million bogus popular votes)- which was promoted all over the media.  Kerry actually won the True vote by 6-10 million (he had 51-53.5%). Bush did not want a repeat of the 2000 election in which Gore won the official (bogus) popular vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-4 million). Bush needed to win the popular vote in 2004, so his vote share was padded in big states that Kerry won easily- like NY and CA.

The 2016 Election Model: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/election-model-vs-recorded-vote/ https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/2016-election-model-forecast/

A brief history of election fraud:  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/proving-election-fraud-the-pc-spreadsheets-and-the-internet/

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on December 10, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , , ,

SMOKING GUN! APPROXIMATELY 15% OF BERNIE’S VOTES WERE FLIPPED TO CLINTON IN CALIFORNIA

Richard Charnin
June 24, 2016
Updated: July 4

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

Democratic Primaries spread sheet
TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries
LINKS TO  POSTS

SMOKING GUN! APPROXIMATELY 15% OF BERNIE’S VOTES WERE FLIPPED TO CLINTON IN CALIFORNIA

In California on Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.4-43.6%.

Sanders leads in votes counted since Election Day by 52.3-47.7% . These include mail-ins, crossover ballots, provisional ballots and others. The votes have been individually verified. That is a whopping 17.4% discrepancy in margin from Election Day.

It appears that nearly 15% of Sanders’ votes were flipped to Clinton on maliciously-coded voting machines and central tabulators. View the CA Update spreadsheet.

In addition, thousands of ballots may have been illegally shredded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNsnsWZn0Ws

Poll workers claim that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposed to have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they would have to vote using provisional ballots.  There were two reasons for this:

1- Previously registered voters’ names had been removed from the rolls.  

2- Some were marked as vote by mail voters – but they had received no ballot in the mail.  Virtually all who were not  allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters.

Poll workers in Los Angeles and Orange County report that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2 to 1 margin, the opposite of the vote count.  The contrast indicates vote-flipping.  

If you add the lower figure of 50% of voters who were not allowed to vote regular ballots for Bernie to the votes he received, you wind up with a substantial Sanders landslide victory in California.  The primary beneficiary of the fraud is Hillary Clinton.  

EARLY VOTER EXIT POLL – A 23% DISCREPANCY

Election Justice USA is a voter advocacy non-profit organization which demands a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.  It asserts that the Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results. In Los Angeles area polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton  lead over Bernie Sanders was less than 10 percent. 

 “The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents, and was praised–prior to election night–by mainstream elections journalists, including Nate Cohn of the New York Times. While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, especially one of this magnitude. It’s also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit.”

Provisional Ballots

Acclaimed BBC reporter, author and election fraud expert Greg Palast exposed the fraud in Florida in 2000. In How California is being stolen from Sanders right now he wrote“As I’ve previously reported, provisional ballots are “placebo” ballots that let you feel like you’ve voted, but you haven’t. Provisional ballots are generally discarded.”

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%

Sanders’ Vote share change from Election Day

CALIFORNIA Election Day Current Difference
 Average  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% 42.5% 2.3%
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% 68.7% 0.0%
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% 61.2% 1.0%
ORANGE 44.9% 47.7% 2.8%
PLACER 42.5% 42.5% 0.0%
PLUMAS 55.0% 55.0% 0.0%
RIVERSIDE 39.4% 42.9% 3.4%
SACRAMENTO 42.6% 44.9% 2.3%
SAN BENARDINO 42.1% 44.7% 2.6%
SAN BENITO 41.6% 45.1% 3.5%
SAN DIEGO 44.5% 48.0% 3.5%
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% 51.1% 1.7%
SANTA CLARA 39.1% 42.1% 3.1%
SANTA CRUZ 55.6% 57.7% 2.1%
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% 46.5% 2.1%
TEHAMA 50.9% 52.8% 1.9%
TRINITY 62.0% 64.3% 2.3%
TULARE 40.7% 44.6% 3.8%
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%

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 
112 Comments

Posted by on June 24, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

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: , , , , , ,

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: , , , , ,

2004 Stolen presidential election vs. 2016 Democratic primaries

2004 Presidential election vs. 2016 Democratic Primaries

Richard Charnin
Updated 8/26/2016

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

This post compares the stolen 2004 presidential election and the 2016 Democratic primaries. There were 50 states exit polled in 2004  and 26 primaries polled in 2016 .
View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

In 2004, Bush won the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%, a 3 million vote margin. 
Kerry won the National Exit Poll by 51.7-47.0%, a 6 million margin.
View the 7:33pm 2004 National Exit Poll (not for on-air use)

The following states flipped from Kerry in the exit poll to Bush:
CO FL IA MO NM NV OH VA. Kerry needed FL or OH to win.

2004: average exit poll margin of error (MoE) was 3.43%
2016: average exit poll MoE was 3.52%

2004: 23 of 50 exit polls (46%) exceeded the MoE.
2016: 12  of 26  (46%) exceeded the MoE.

2004: 22  of 50 (44%) exceeded the MoE for Kerry. Probability: P= 1 in 600,000 trillion.
2016: 11 of 26  (42%)  exceeded the MoE for Sanders. P= 1 in 76.8 billion.

2004: 42 of 50  (84%) shifted to Bush in the vote.  P= 1 in 1.7 million.
2016: 24 of 26  (92%) shifted to Clinton in the vote. P= 1 in 190,000.

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY EXIT POLLS

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

Primary MoE Sanders Vote Exit Poll Discrep. 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

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis