RSS

Tag Archives: Gallup voter affiliation survey

2016 True Vote Analysis: Voter Turnout

2016 True Vote Analysis: Voter Turnout

Richard Charnin
Sept.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

According to the 2016 Census, 87.3% (137.5 million) of 157.6 million registered voters cast ballots, the same turnout as in the 1996-2016 elections. There were 136.2 million votes recorded – a 1% difference. In 1996-2016, there was a 3% difference between votes cast and recorded.

According to the Gallup Voter Preference Survey, on Election Day, 39.8% were Independents, 31.9% Democrats and 28.3% Republicans.

Assume registered voter turnout of
– 87% Independents
Trump won Independents by 8%. Pre-election polls indicate he won by 10%.

– 85% Democrats
(6% stayed home – or 12% of Sanders voters).
Clinton had 88% of Dems – but that assumes Jill Stein had just 2%.
Jill probably had more.

– 91% Republicans
Trump had 89%. Johnson took away votes.

Result: Trump wins by 47.6-45.2% (3.4 million votes)
Stein has 2.9% (4 million) compared to her 1.07% recorded vote (1.45 million).
So the following is CONSERVATIVE. Trump probably did better.

Party Turnout Voted….Clinton….Trump… Johnson… Stein….Other
Ind… 87%…….34.4%…….40%…….48%…….4.0%….5.0%…3.0%
Dem… 85%……27.1%…….88%……..8%…….1.0%….2.0%…1.0%
Rep… 91%…….25.7%……..7%…….89%…….3.0%….1.0%…0.0%

Vote..87.3%…….. 100%……45.2%…..47.6%……2.8%….2.9%…1.5%
Votes………………137.5……62.15…..65.51……3.81…..3.97…2.05
Recorded
Share………….. 136.22…..48.25%….46.17%…..3.29%…1.07%..1.23%
Votes…………….. 136.22…..65.72…..62.89……4.48……1.45…1.67

Sensitivity Analysis
(Trump wins all 25 turnout scenarios- see spreadsheet tables)
Trump Vote Margin
Best case: 4.9 million (48.2-44.7%)
Base case: 3.35 million (47.6-45.2%)
Worst case: 1.8 million (47.1-45.8%)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=610568510

 

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 24, 2017 in 2016 election

 

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

2016 Pre-election Model – Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote

Richard Charnin
Aug. 29, 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 Exit Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
LINKS TO  POSTS
Last 3 Elections: Exact Forecast of Electoral Vote

2016 Pre-election Model – Calculating the Expected Electoral Vote

This is for those interested in Electoral Vote math based on pre-election polls. It discusses basic probability and spreadsheet functions. You won’t see a discussion of this anywhere else.The MSM doesn’t care for critical thinking. Perhaps because they are incapable of it.

One of the methods I have used in pre-election forecast modeling is to calculate the Expected Recorded Electoral Vote as well as the True Vote. Important Note: the RECORDED EV is based on MSM pre-election polls which are usually biased for the establishment candidate. In 2016, Clinton was the establishment candidate.

As I did not have 51 state pre-election polls, I used the following method to estimate them based on the average of nine pre-election national polls and Party-ID:

1) Each state’s estimated Party-ID was calculated using the proportional change from the 2012 National Party-ID to the 2016 Gallup National Voter affiliation survey: 40% Independents, 32% Democrats and 28% Republicans.

2) The average vote shares of nine national pre-election polls were applied to the Party-ID of each state to derive the projected state vote shares.

The Expected EV is based on state win probabilities. Calculating the pre and post-election TRUE EV is much more complicated.

In the 2016 Forecast Model, Trump’s Expected EV (before undecided voters) was 305.5, exactly matching his recorded 306 EV. His Snapshot 307 EV is the sum of the EVs for states that he was projected to win. Trump led the weighted average pre-election polls (before undecided voter allocation) by 44.1-43.1%.

View the Recorded votes and two True Vote Models for all the states:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=667189511

The following steps calculate the Expected RECORDED EV:
1. Using state forecasts derived from the National Gallup Voter Affiliation survey, calculate the probability P(i) of winning each state using Trump’s projected 2-party vote share. Assume a 3.0% margin of error.
P(i) = normdist(Trump%/(Trump%+Clinton%),0.5,.03/1.96,true)

2. Multiply the state win probability by the state electoral vote.
S(i) = P(i)* EV(i), i =1,51
3. Expected EV = sum [P(i)* EV(i)], i = 1,51

View the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=1036175945
State Electoral votes are in the range B129:B179
Trump’s state forecasts are in the range D129:D179
Corresponding state win probabilities are in the range J129:J179

The Expected EV calculation is in cell I128.
Expected EV = 305.5 = sumproduct(J129:J179, B129:B179)

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 29, 2017 in 2016 election, electoral vote

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2016 Election Model- 9 pre-election polls: 5 Non-MSM and 4 MSM pollsters

Richard Charnin
Aug, 4, 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 following are the basic steps used to estimate 2016 National True Vote shares.  The True Vote Model utilizes nine  pre-election polls.  Party-ID varies greatly among the polls. Therefore, Gallup’s dedicated voter affiliation (Party-ID) survey is used to adjust the national poll shares.

The 2016 Gallup national survey is used to approximate state Party-IDs by calculating the change from 2012 National Party-ID to 2016 Gallup Party-ID.  The projected state vote share is calculated by applying the average of the 9 national pre-election Party-ID poll shares to the 2016 state Party-ID. The electoral vote is then calculated. View the full set of calculations in this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1036175945

National True Vote Model: Basic Methodology

1) Compare MSM vs. non-MSM polls (Party-ID and vote shares).
2) Adjust pollsters Party-ID to Gallup voter affiliation
3) Allocate undecided voters.
4) View the effect of these adjustments to the pre-election vote shares.

  • MSM pollsters overweighted Democrats Party-ID and underweighted Independents compared to non-MSM pollsters. Clinton wins the polls by 45.8-43.6%, matching her 2.1% recorded vote margin.
  • 2 Apply Gallup voter affiliation survey of National Party-ID (40I-32D-28R)  to each of the nine polls, Trump is a 44.1-43.3% winner.
  • 3 Note: the polls did not allocate undecided voters (approximately 6%), which typically break 3-1 for the challenger. Trump was the de-facto challenger.
  • 4 Effect: Allocating  undecided voters (4.5% to Trump and 1.5% to Clinton) to the Gallup-adjusted vote shares, Trump is the winner by 48.6-44.8%.

Non-MSM………….Party-ID…………..Pre-election……….Gallup (40I-32D-28R)
Polls………………Ind Dem Rep…….. Clinton..Trump…..Clinton Trump
IBD………………..37% 34% 29%…….. 43%….45%……..41.9% 45.3%
Rasmussen……..32% 40% 28%………45%….43%……..40.6% 45.3%
Quinnipiac………26% 40% 34%………47%….40%……..44.7% 40.8%
Gravis……………27% 40% 33%………47%….45%……..43.6% 45.5%
USC/Dormsite… 30% 38% 32%………44%….47%……..41.7% 48.2%
Average………..30.4% 38.4% 31.2%…45.2%.44.0%…..42.5% 45.0%

MSM……………..Party-ID……………..Pre-election…….Gallup Adj
Polls…………….Ind Dem Rep………..Clinton Trump..Clinton Trump
Reuters…………16% 45% 38%………42% ….39%…….36.0% 36.8%
Fox News………19% 43% 38%………48%…..44%…….45.8% 43.9%
CNN……………..43% 31% 26%………49%……44%…..48.6% 44.4%
ABC ……………..29% 37% 29%………47%…..45%……46.8% 47.0%
Average………26.8% 39.0% 32.8%…46.5% 43.0%……44.3% 43.0%

Summary…………….Party-ID…………Pre-election……Gallup Adj
…………………Ind…..Dem….Rep……Clinton.Trump..Clinton Trump
9 polls……….28.8% 38.7% 31.9%…..45.8% 43.6%…..43.3% 44.1%
5 nonMSM….30.4% 38.4% 31.2%…..45.2% 44.0%….42.5% 45.0%
4 MSM………26.8% 39.0% 32.8%…..46.5% 43.0%……44.3% 43.0%

Allocating  undecided voters (4.5% to Trump and 1.5% to Clinton) to the Gallup-adjusted vote shares, Trump is the winner by 48.6-44.8%.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 5, 2017 in 2016 election, True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , ,

2016 Voter Turnout and Vote share Sensitivity Analysis: Trump won the Popular Vote

Richard Charnin
Mar. 15, 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

Trump wins all 25 scenarios over various combinations of voter turnout

Assumption
Party ID (registration) 38I-31D-27R
(Gallup voter affiliation survey average Nov.1-13,  2016)

1. Base Case Voter Turnout: Dem 65%, Rep 70%, Ind 70%
Trump 48.3-45.2% (4.2 million vote margin)

2. Worst Case Turnout: Dem 67%, Rep 68%, Ind 70%
Trump 47.6-45.9% (2.3 million vote margin)

3. Best Case Turnout: Dem 63%, Rep 72%, Ind 70%
Trump 49.1-44.5% (6.2 million vote margin)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=610568510

Reg Voter  Gallup Base Case
Turnout Voter Affil Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
70% Ind 38% 40% 50% 5% 5%
65% Dem 31% 88% 8% 1% 3%
70% Rep 27% 7% 89% 3% 1%
Vote share 100.0% 45.2% 48.3% 3.2% 3.2%
Votes 136.2 61.6 65.8 4.4 4.4
Trump %
Dem   Rep Turnout      
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9% 49.1%
64% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7% 48.9%
65% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5% 48.7%
66% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3% 48.5%
67% 47.6% 47.8% 48.0% 48.2% 48.3%
Trump Vote
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 65.9 66.1 66.3 66.6 66.8
64% 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3 66.6
65% 65.4 65.6 65.8 66.1 66.3
66% 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8 66.1
67% 64.9 65.1 65.3 65.6 65.8
Clinton %
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 45.2% 45.0% 44.9% 44.7% 44.5%
64% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9% 44.7%
65% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1% 44.9%
66% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2% 45.1%
67% 45.9% 45.8% 45.6% 45.4% 45.2%
Trump %  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2% 4.5%
64% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8% 4.2%
65% 2.4% 2.8% 3.1% 3.5% 3.8%
66% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1% 3.4%
67% 1.7% 2.0% 2.4% 2.7% 3.1%
Trump  Vote  Margin
Dem Rep Turnout
Turnout 68% 69% 70% 71% 72%
63% 4.3 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.2
64% 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7
65% 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.2
66% 2.8 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.7
67% 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 15, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

Why the 2016 pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and recorded vote are all wrong

Richard Charnin
Dec.30, 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 was different in kind from prior elections; the Democrat was the establishment candidate. It was established beyond a reasonable doubt that the primaries were stolen from Bernie Sanders by the DNC which colluded with the media.

Some analysts claim that the 2016 unadjusted state exit polls prove that the election was rigged for Trump. But just because the polls were excellent indicators of the True Vote in the past does not prove that they were accurate in 2016. 

Are we supposed to believe that the MSM would not rig the unadjusted exit polls to match the rigged  pre-election polls  to make it appear that Clinton was the winner?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0
http://www.inquisitr.com/3692040/2016-presidential-polls-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-leading-battleground-states-win-lose/

Exit pollsters at  Edison Research never reveal the location of precincts, votes and survey results. The only way to prove that the unadjusted exit polls are correct (and the published results bogus) is 1) to reveal the complete exit poll timeline and the data for all precincts polled and 2) a True Vote analysis based on historical and current independent data.

True Vote analysis indicates that Trump won the popular and electoral vote and that pre-election and exit polls were rigged for Clinton by inflating Democratic Party-ID. True Vote Models were based on a) national Gallup Party-ID voter affiliation and b) returning 2012 voters.

As usual, state and national exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote. This was the first election in which the media discussed election fraud – but avoided the obvious U.S. suspects from prior elections and the rigged voting machines, illegal and disenfranchised voters. Now that the MSM finally admits election fraud, they blame it on the Russians! And don’t report the proven fact that the primary was rigged for Clinton.

Party-ID
Nine Pre-election polls (average): 28.8 Ind – 38.7 Dem- 31.9 Rep.
Final National Exit Poll (CNN): 31 Ind – 36 Dem – 33 Rep.
Gallup national voter affiliation survey: 40 Ind -32 Dem -28 Rep. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=505041111

Nine Pre-election polls 
Clinton won the average: 45.8-43.3%
Trump won the average Gallup-adjusted poll: 44.4-42.9%
Trump won Independents: 43.6-33.8%

Final  National Exit Poll (forced to match the Recorded Vote)
Clinton won the reported vote: 48.2-46.2%.
Clinton won the National Exit Poll: 47.7-46.2%.
Trump won Independents by just 46-42% – a 5.8% discrepancy from the pre-election polls which he led by 9.8%. This anomaly is additional evidence that Trump won the True Vote.

Unadjusted exit polls (28 states)
Clinton won the polls: 49.6-43.6%
Clinton won the corresponding recorded vote: 49.3-45.2%

States not exit polled
Trump won: 50.4-43.7%

True Vote
Trump led the True Vote Model (three scenarios of his share of late undecided voters)
– Scenario I:  47.5-45.1%, 306 EV (50% undecided)
– Scenario II: 47.9-44.7%, 321 EV (60% undecided)
– Scenario III: 48.3-44.3%, 351 EV (70% undecided)

The True Vote Model analysis based on a plausible number of returning voters from the prior election  confirmed the three scenarios: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/university-of-virginia-study-20-of-trump-voters-were-former-obama-voters/

The National Election Pool of six media giants funds exit pollster Edison Research. The published results are always forced to match the recorded vote which implies zero election fraud. But there is always election fraud.  Historically, unadjusted state and national exit polls always favored the Democratic candidate, but there was  a RED shift from the Democrat in the poll to the Republican in the recorded vote.

The True Vote Model indicates that the 1988-2008 unadjusted exit polls were accurate.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 30, 2016 in 2016 election

 

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

2016 Election Scenario Analysis

Richard Charnin
Nov. 23, 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 Exit Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

This is an analysis of four election scenarios. 

1. Gallup Party-ID and True Vote Model (TVM) vote shares
2. Gallup Party-ID and National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares
3. NEP Party-ID and NEP vote shares
4. NEP Party-ID and TVM vote shares

It is a FACT: the Reported vote is NEVER equal to the True Vote. The pundits always brainwash the public into assuming that the Reported vote represents True voter intent. 

The National Exit Poll is always forced to match the Reported vote  (view Scenario 3).
NEP Party-ID is 36D-33R-31I.
Clinton leads Trump by 2.03 million votes: 47.7-46.2%.
Others (including Johnson and Stein) have just 6.1% combined. Stein has 1%.

The True Vote Model (Scenario 1) uses Gallup Party-ID: 40I-32D-28R.
Trump leads Clinton by 2.18 million votes: 45.7-44.0%.  How many of the Other 10.3% voted for Jill Stein? Surely more than 1%. Probably close to 5%.

It is clear that the third party vote is a key factor. Jill Stein had an implausibly low 1% share. Where did her votes go?  Compare Trump’s 2.18 million True Vote margin in Scenario 1, in which third parties had 10.3%, to his negative margins in scenarios 2 and 3 where third parties had 6-7%. The differential  indicates that Stein did better than 1%. Her votes were stolen.

Exit poll discrepancies: http://tdmsresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-Election-Table_Nov-17.-2016.jpg

 True Vote Sensitivity Analysis: Calculate Trump’s vote margins over a range of his shares of Republicans and Independents.

 1. Gallup/TVM  Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 89% 9% 2%
Rep 28% 7% 90% 3%
Ind 40% 34% 44% 22%
TVM Total 100% 44.0% 45.7% 10.3%
Votes (mil) 133.26 58.69 60.87 13.70
2. Gallup/NEP   Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 89% 8% 3%
Rep 28% 8% 88% 4%
Ind 40% 42% 46% 12%
Total 100% 47.5% 45.6% 6.9%
Votes (mil) 133.26 63.33 60.77 9.17
3. NEP/NEP Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89% 8% 3%
Rep 33% 8% 88% 4%
Ind 31% 42% 46% 12%
Total 100% 47.7% 46.2% 6.1%
Votes (mil) 133.26 63.57 61.54 8.16
4. NEP/TVM Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89% 9% 2%
Rep 33% 7% 90% 3%
Ind 31% 34% 44% 22%
Total 100% 44.9% 46.6% 8.5%
Votes (mil) 133.26 59.82 62.07 11.37

True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis

Scenario 1 Trump % Rep
Trump 85.0% 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 93.0%
% Ind Trump
48% 46.2% 46.7% 47.3% 47.8% 48.4%
44% 44.6% 45.1% 45.7% 46.2% 46.8%
40% 43.0% 43.5% 44.1% 44.6% 45.2%
Clinton
48% 43.6% 43.0% 42.4% 41.9% 41.3%
44% 45.2% 44.6% 44.0% 43.5% 42.9%
40% 46.8% 46.2% 45.6% 45.1% 44.5%
 Share Margin
48% 2.6% 3.7% 4.8% 6.0% 7.1%
44% -0.6% 0.5% 1.6% 2.8% 3.9%
40% -3.8% -2.7% -1.6% -0.4% 0.7%
 Vote (000)  Margin 
48% 3.5 5.0 6.4 7.9 9.4
44% -0.8 0.7 2.2 3.7 5.2
40% -5.1 -3.6 -2.1 -0.6 0.9

Summary Comparison (based on Party-ID)

Unadjusted Exit Poll   Reported Vote   True Vote  
Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 48.4% 45.8% 46.1% 49.6% 44.6% 48.4%
Diff   -2.6%   3.5%   3.9%
OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 43.9% 51.4%
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% 48.2% 45.2%
Share of  Indep-endents       
Unadjusted Exit Poll   Reported Vote   True Vote  
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 47.3% 40.3% 39.2% 53.1% 36.1% 50.2%
Diff   -7.0%   13.9%   14.1%
OH 50.0% 34.0% 38.0% 52.0% 38.0% 52.0%
NC 44.0% 44.0% 38.5% 56.0% 35.0% 49.0%
NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 36.0% 52.0%
PA 50.0% 43.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 53.0%
MI 32.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.3% 45.0% 56.3%
MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 39.0% 45.0%
IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 51.0%
FL 48.0% 43.0% 48.0% 50.5% 32.0% 53.0%
WI 48.0% 37.0% 43.0% 46.0% 43.0% 46.0%
 
23 Comments

Posted by on November 23, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

2016 Election Model Forecast

Richard Charnin
Nov. 7, 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

Unlike corporate mainstream polls, the 2016 Election Model  provides two forecasts:  the Recorded Vote and the True Vote. Pollsters are usually quite accurate in their projections of the Recorded Vote. But they avoid the fraud factor. The fraudulent Recorded Vote is never the same as the True Vote. Clinton won the recorded vote by 48.3-46.2%.

The  Election Model  is based on the effects of changes in party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind) from 2012 to 2016. Clinton led the final 9-poll average 45.8-43.3% (298-240 EV). 

Election Model forecast: State party-ID weights were adjusted to Gallup party-affiliation survey weights. Gallup is the only poll dedicated to tracking national  party affiliation. 

After adjusting the polls for the Gallup voter affiliation  (40I-32D-28R), undecided voters were allocated (UVA) to derive the final adjusted TRUE poll share. Typically the challenger (in this case Trump) wins the majority (75%) of the undecided vote.

Recorded Vote: Trump wins 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV.
True Vote: 75% of undecided voters allocated to Trump.
Trump wins 48.4-44.3% with 352-186 EV.

Forecast Methodology

The 2016 party-ID for each state is calculated by applying the same proportional change from the 2012 state party-ID as the change from the 2012 National party-ID to the 2016 Gallup National survey party-ID. The popular vote win probability and corresponding Electoral Vote are estimated for each pre-election poll. State votes are forecast by applying national pre-election poll shares to the state party-ID.

The electoral vote is  calculated two ways: 1)  the total EV  (snapshot) in which the winner of the state wins all  of the state electoral votes and 2) the statistically expected EV (state win probability times the state electoral vote). Sensitivity Analysis tables show the effect of incremental vote shares on the total vote.

Sensitivity Analysis: Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA) effect on expected Electoral and Popular vote win probability 

UVA  Trump Clinton  EV   WinProb
50%….47.1….45.6…….310….. 75%
60%….47.6….45.1…….332….. 86%
75%….48.5….44.3…….352….. 96%

Note: The 2008 and 2012 election models exactly forecast the electoral vote (365 and 332 for Obama). But the True Votes were quite different. The 2008 model forecast that Obama would win 420 votes with a 58% share, exactly matching the state unadjusted exit poll aggregate. He led the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 61-37%.  

The 2012 model forecast that Obama would win 51.5% recorded and 55% True vote (380 EV}.  The exit pollsters did not poll in 19 states. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Party-ID Gallup 9 Polls
Ind 40.0% 33.8% 43.6% 8.9% 3.8%
Dem 32.0% 88.1% 6.9% 1.3% 1.7%
Rep 28.0% 5.6% 87.8% 3.9% 0.3%
Calc 94.7% 43.26% 44.20% 5.07% 2.14%
9PollAvg 94.6% 43.31% 44.13% 5.07% 2.14%
UVA 100.0% 44.33% 48.43% 5.07% 2.14%
Recorded 98.77% 48.25% 46.17% 3.29% 1.07%

 

REPORTED Party-ID      Vote   EVote  
POLL Ind Dem Rep Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Ipsos 16% 45% 38% 43.0% 39.0% 317 221
IBD 37% 34% 29% 41.0% 43.0% 216 322
Rasmussen 32% 40% 28% 45.0% 43.0% 313 225
Quinnipiac 26% 40% 34% 47.0% 40.0% 378 160
Fox News 19% 43% 38% 48.0% 44.0% 317 221
CNN 43% 31% 26% 49.0% 44.0% 362 176
ABC 29% 37% 29% 47.0% 43.0% 317 221
Gravis 27% 40% 33% 47.0% 45.0% 294 244
LA Times 30% 38% 32% 42.6% 48.2% 180 358
Average 28.8% 38.7% 31.9% 45.5% 43.2% 299 239

 

Gallup Adj.  Vote   EVote   Trump UVA
40I-32D-28R Clinton Trump Clinton Trump WinProb WinProb
Ipsos 37.9% 36.4% 288 250 25.2% 96.2%
IBD 40.2% 43.2% 216 322 88.3% 99.5%
Rasmussen 41.1% 45.3% 187 351 94.4% 99.6%
Quinnipiac 44.7% 40.8% 335 203 6.5% 35.8%
Fox News 44.2% 43.9% 255 283 45.3% 66.1%
CNN 48.6% 44.4% 335 203 7.0% 13.7%
ABC 46.8% 47.0% 249 289 53.9% 58.0%
Gravis 43.6% 45.5% 216 322 75.0% 97.5%
LA Times 40.3% 49.8% 51 487 100.0% 100.0%
Average 42.9% 44.4% 237 301 74.7% 96.6%
Recorded EV before UVA   231 307   96.1%
True EV       after UVA 186 352   100%
 Forecast Vote Recorded  Electoral
 before UVA Clinton % Trump % Clinton Trump
Total 42.9 44.4 232 306
AK 32.4 49.6 0 3
AL 37.4 51.0 0 9
AR 39.4 48.6 0 6
AZ 37.9 47.6 0 11
CA 45.7 41.0 55 0
CO 39.1 46.5 0 9
CT 44.2 40.5 7 0
DC 66.0 23.6 3 0
DE 47.6 39.7 3 0
FL 42.2 44.8 0 29
GA 40.5 47.7 0 16
HI 46.7 41.8 4 0
IA 39.4 46.1 0 6
ID 33.2 54.5 0 4
IL 45.8 42.4 20 0
IN 39.4 48.6 0 11
KS 33.9 52.3 0 6
KY 47.9 41.8 8 0
LA 38.6 45.7 0 8
MA 45.9 37.2 11 0
MD 51.4 36.7 10 0
ME 40.9 44.1 0 4
MI 44.1 44.0 16 0
MN 43.6 44.7 0 10
MO 40.3 48.0 0 10
MS 39.4 49.0 0 6
MT 36.1 52.3 0 3
NC 44.5 42.3 15 0
ND 38.3 50.0 0 3
NE 35.8 52.0 0 5
NH 38.1 46.6 0 4
NJ 42.8 41.2 14 0
NM 46.5 41.1 5 0
NV 42.7 44.4 0 6
NY 49.3 37.7 29 0
OH 41.6 46.7 0 18
OK 42.5 46.5 0 7
OR 42.9 43.3 0 7
PA 46.6 42.3 20 0
RI 48.7 35.4 4 0
SC 40.3 48.0 0 9
SD 37.5 50.4 0 3
TN 37.9 50.3 0 11
TX 40.1 47.5 0 38
UT 31.2 57.3 0 6
VA 41.2 47.0 0 13
VT 46.7 41.0 3 0
WA 42.8 46.6 0 12
WI 42.7 45.7 0 10
WV 48.2 39.5 5 0
WY 26.8 61.9 0 3
 
11 Comments

Posted by on November 7, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis