RSS

Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

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 True Vote Model- California

Richard Charnin
Aug. 22, 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
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
LINKS TO  POSTS
Last 3 Elections: Exact Forecast of Electoral Vote

2016 True Vote Model- California

Clinton won the recorded vote: 61.7-31.6% (4.27 million votes). But election fraud was rampant.

Consider that in 2012, Obama beat Romney by 60.2-37.1% (3.0 million votes) in California. Do you believe that Clinton beat Obama’s margin by 1.2 million? If you do, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in.

1) To match the recorded vote, Clinton needed to win new voters by 90-2%.
2) Nearly 450,000 angry Sanders voters did not turn out for Hillary.

Clinton won the True Vote by 55.0-37.8% (2.44 million votes).
The 1.8 million True Vote discrepancy from the recorded vote comprised nearly 2/3 of her bogus 2.8 million vote national margin.

Media shills insist that Clinton won by 3 million votes. It has become their Mantra, along with the debunked Russian “collusion”. Show them the numbers and tell them: THE RECORDED VOTE IS NEVER EQUAL TO THE TRUE VOTE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FRAUD-FREE ELECTION.

California True Vote Model
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=633901715

There are eleven counties in California with more registered voters than voting age adults in the county. The counties include San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization, has sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla on behalf of the Election Integrity Project, noting that there are 11 counties in the state with more registered voters, and alleging that the state may be out of compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/10-11-california-counties-registered-voters-voting-age-adults-democrat/

Related CA posts:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/smoking-gun-approximately-15-of-bernies-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/01/01/more-clues-on-election-fraud-from-humboldt-cty-ca/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/19/implausible-california-exit-poll-and-reported-vote/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/12/25/california-four-election-scenarios-which-one-do-you-believe/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/02/05/california-primary-vote-timeline-indicates-it-was-stolen-in-early-voting-before-5pm-on-june-7/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/confirmation-bernie-won-california-by-at-least-100000-votes/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/california-primary-bernie-leads-in-vote-counts-since-election-day/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/bernie-landslide-in-ca-humboldt-cty-open-source-system/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/smoking-gun-approximately-15-of-bernies-votes-were-flipped-to-clinton-in-california/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 22, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

Pre-election Presidential polls: preparing for a stolen election

Pre-election Presidential polls: preparing for a stolen election

Richard Charnin
Oct. 19, 2016

Just published: 77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit 
Proving Election Fraud

The media wants voters to believe that Clinton has a substantial lead in the polls – while maintaining that the Russians are working with Wikileaks and  are preparing to hack the voting machines for Trump. But the media won’t discuss the history of election fraud going back decades on proprietary voting machines and central tabulators. And that 2016 Election fraud is proven by exit poll discrepancies  favoring Clinton in 24 of 26 states.

The latest Fox poll shows Clinton leading  45-39% over Trump. Johnson and Jill Stein have 5% and 3%, respectively.The Party-ID weights are 43% Dem, 38% Rep and 19% Ind.  Candidate vote shares were calculated to match the poll results.

In order to match the Fox poll, Clinton had approximately 35% of Independents and Trump 30%. Approximately 17% of Independents support Johnson and Stein while 18% (can we consider them Independents?) show no preference..

But the latest Gallup party affiliation survey indicates that 40% are Independents,   32% Democrats and 28% Republicans. Using the survey percentages, and assuming that 50% of Independents support Johnson and Stein, then Trump is leading Clinton by 36-35%, with 16% for Stein and 13% for Johnson.

Applying the Gallup weights adjusted proportionally to each of  15 battleground states, Trump leads by 36.9-34.5% and wins 13  states with a 142-51 lead in electoral votes.

In anticipation of the final presidential debate, it is instructive to recall the Democratic primaries. Eleven of 26 exit poll discrepancies exceeded the margin of error – a 1 in 77 billion probability. 

Wikileaks documents provide confirmation that the primaries were rigged against Sanders while Donald Trump easily won the Republican primaries.

Other than Fox News, the Clinton email scandal is ignored in the mainstream media. They would rather focus on  Trump’s locker room comments years ago- which are no different than the language used every day on cable and in films.  The media would rather dwell on this non-issue than discuss the monumental Clinton/DNC scandals unfolding every day.

 

View the  spreadsheet calculations and source data links.

The Fox Poll

Party-ID Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein na
Ind 19% 35% 30% 10% 7% 18%
Dem 43% 85% 5% 2% 2% 6%
Rep 38% 5% 82% 6% 2% 5%
 Calc 100% 45.1% 39.0% 5.0% 3.0% 7.9%
 Poll 100% 45.0% 39.0% 5.0% 3.0% 8.0%

 True Vote: Gallup party affiliation survey 

Gallup  Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Ind 40% 20% 30% 20% 30%
Dem 32% 80% 5% 5% 10%
Rep 28% 5% 80% 12% 3%
 Calc 100% 35.0% 36.0% 13.0% 16.0%
 Poll 92% 45.0% 39.0% 5.0% 3.0%
 Diff 8% -10.0% -3.0% 8.0% 13.0%

15 Battleground states

Gallup Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Ind 38.7% 20% 30% 20% 30%
Dem 31.6% 80% 5% 5% 10%
Rep 29.7% 5% 80% 12% 3%
 Calc 100% 34.5% 37.0% 12.9% 15.7%
 Poll 95.0% 45.4% 42.9% 5.4% 1.3%
 Diff 5.0% -10.9% -6.0% 7.5% 14.4%
 Gallup   Party-ID
EV Dem Rep Ind
AZ 11 22.8% 27.3% 49.8%
CO 9 24.4% 26.2% 49.5%
FL 29 30.6% 27.8% 41.5%
GA 16 30.8% 34.2% 35.0%
IA 6 24.5% 25.4% 50.0%
ME 4 25.2% 21.5% 53.3%
MI 16 34.7% 29.4% 35.9%
MN 10 34.7% 31.0% 34.3%
MO 10 30.8% 35.0% 34.2%
NC 15 32.9% 24.2% 42.9%
NV 6 31.3% 27.5% 41.2%
OH 18 32.4% 33.4% 34.2%
PA 20 39.1% 29.2% 31.8%
VA 13 31.6% 33.4% 35.0%
WI 10 33.9% 32.6% 33.5%
 Total Evote  193
Average 30.6% 29.2% 40.1%
Wtd Avg 31.6% 29.7% 38.7%
 Polls       Trump Clinton
 10/19 Clinton Trump Johnson Stein EVote EVote
AZ 42 44 9 1 11
CO 45 37 10 3 9
FL 48 44 4 1 29
GA 42 48 4 0 16
IA 39 43 6 2 6
ME 44 36 9 3 4
MI 47 37 7 4 16
MN 43 43 4 2 tie tie
MO 42 47 4 1 10
NC 48 47 4 0 15
NV 47 40 7 0 6
OH 45 45 6 1 tie tie
PA 47 41 6 1 20
VA 46 43 6 0 13
WI 47 39 1 3 10
 Total EV          43 122 
Average 44.8 42.3 5.8 1.5
Wtd Avg 45.4 42.9 5.4 1.3
 Gallup Party_ID       Trump Clinton
 True Vote Clinton Trump Johnson Stein EVote EVote
AZ 29.6% 38.0% 14.4% 18.1% 11
CO 30.7% 37.0% 14.3% 18.1% 9
FL 34.2% 36.2% 13.2% 16.3% 29
GA 33.4% 39.4% 12.6% 14.6% 16
IA 30.9% 36.6% 14.3% 18.2% 6
ME 31.9% 34.5% 14.5% 19.1% 4
MI 36.4% 36.0% 12.4% 15.1% 16
MN 36.2% 36.8% 12.3% 14.7% 10
MO 33.2% 39.8% 12.6% 14.4% 10
NC 36.1% 33.9% 13.1% 16.9% 15
NV 34.7% 35.9% 13.1% 16.3% 6
OH 34.4% 38.6% 12.5% 14.5% 18
PA 39.1% 34.9% 11.8% 14.3% 20
VA 34.0% 38.8% 12.6% 14.7% 13
WI 35.5% 37.8% 12.3% 14.4% 10
Total EV  142  51
Average 34.0% 36.9% 13.1% 16.0%
Wtd Avg 34.5% 36.9% 12.9% 15.7%
 
9 Comments

Posted by on October 19, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud

Richard Charnin

Oct. 7, 2016

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud 

The 2016 Democratic primaries have finally awakened the public to Election Fraud. Millions of voters who were unaware or in denial came to realize that our election system was rigged and that the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

The media and its cadre of exit poll naysayers in the corporate media don’t dare mention the third-rail of American politics – election fraud. The media pundits remain silent on electronic vote rigging. They maintain that the exit polls are inaccurate and call truth-seeking activists conspiracy buffs.

The media is silent on the 2015 Year in Elections report, an independent research project by 2,000 elections experts from Harvard University and the University of Sydney. The report ranked the United States dead last in electoral integrity among established Western democracies in evaluating the  integrity of 180 national parliamentary and presidential contests held July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015 in 139 countries worldwide.

This book focuses largely on exit polls since they are the focus of virtually all naysayer arguments. But cumulative vote share analysis is based on actual vote counts and is a companion method. The two mathematical methods confirm each other and overwhelmingly prove election fraud. The State Department relies on exit polls in elections overseas to check for fraud if the discrepancies exceed 2%. There is no such check in the U.S.

Overwhelming evidence shows that Sanders won the primaries, despite the 3 million Clinton vote margin repeated endlessly in the media. He won the vast majority of 18-34 year-old voters.  His positions on Wall Street corruption, universal health care, eliminating student debt, etc. made him an overwhelming favorite among young voters.

 

 
13 Comments

Posted by on October 7, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Aug.24: Jill Stein at 3% and Independents just 12% of the electorate?

Richard Charnin
Aug. 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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

In the Aug. 24 Ipsos/Reuters poll  Clinton had 39%; Trump 36%; Johnson 7%;  Stein 3%. The sample of 1,516 Americans included 635 Democrats (41.9%), 527 Republicans (34.8%), 174 Independents (11.5%) and 180 (11.8%) who did not indicate a preference.  http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7349

The latest Gallup Party-ID survey indicates 28% Democrats, 28% Republicans and 42% Independents.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

In the July 17 Ipsos poll, Independents comprised just 14% of the sample. Stein had 1%. Clinton and Trump were tied.  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/strange-polls-jill-stein-at-1-and-just-14-of-respondents-are-independents/

Why the large discrepancies between the Ipsos poll and Gallup Party-ID survey?

The Ipsos poll also indicated a Party_ID split of  36% Democrats and  25% Republicans – an apparent contradiction to the polling sample. Assuming the other 39%  were Independents, it is a close match to the Gallup Survey.

In the primaries, Sanders won approximately 65% of Independents and 35% of Democrats. One would logically expect that Stein would do nearly as well as Sanders against Clinton in a four-way race. They are in essential agreement on major issues – and Clinton has very low approval ratings. But Stein had an implausibly low 3% on Aug. 24 and 1% on July 17.

True Vote Model Model Base Case

This is not a forecast. It is a scenario analysis based on the following assumptions.

Party-ID:  39% Independents, 36% Democrats, 25% Republicans.
Vote shares: Stein has 40% of Independents and 35% of Democrats.  Clinton has 25% and 50%, respectively. They each have 5% of Republicans.

Base Case Result
Stein 29.45% and 231 EV,  Clinton 29.00% and 196 EV, Trump 25.15% and 111 EV. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1739803045

Party-ID Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 39% 40% 25% 15% 20%
Dem 36% 35% 50% 5% 10%
Rep 25% 5% 5% 70% 20%
Total 100% 29.45% 29.00% 25.15% 16.40%
Votes 129,106 38,022 37,441 32,470 21,173
Elect Vote 538 231 196 111 0

 

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Stein % Dem
Stein % 31.0% 33.0% 35.0% 37.0% 39.0%
of Ind Stein
45% 30.0% 30.7% 31.4% 32.1% 32.8%
40% 28.0% 28.7% 29.45% 30.2% 30.9%
35% 26.1% 26.8% 27.5% 28.2% 28.9%
Clinton
45% 28.5% 27.8% 27.1% 26.3% 25.6%
40% 30.4% 29.7% 29.00% 28.3% 27.6%
35% 32.4% 31.7% 31.0% 30.2% 29.5%
Stein Margin
45% 1.5% 2.9% 4.4% 5.8% 7.2%
40% -2.4% -1.0% 0.45% 1.9% 3.3%
35% -6.3% -4.9% -3.5% -2.0% -0.6%
Vote Margin (000)
45% 1,898 3,757 5,616 7,475 9,334
40% -3,137 -1,278 581 2,440 4,299
35% -8,172 -6,313 -4,454 -2,595 -736

 

 
4 Comments

Posted by on August 26, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Tim Robbins: We Need to Fix Our Broken Election System

Richard Charnin
May 5, 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

Tim Robbins, a fine actor and dedicated progressive activist, wrote We Need to Fix Our Election System in the Huffington Post. We need more of his kind.

“Going into Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Indiana, polls showed Bernie Sanders trailing Hillary Clinton by around 7 percent. The final tally had Sanders up by 6 percent, a 13 point difference that seems to follow a pattern of polling discrepancies in this primary process that are quite troubling. A couple of weeks ago I shared a post containing statistics compiled from CNN and the New York Times figures comparing Democratic Party primary exit polls and final election results. The numbers show a significant discrepancy between the two, favoring Hillary Clinton in all but one of the primaries by an average of 9.02 percent and in the New York primary by 16 percent. The post carried an incendiary headline, suggesting election fraud, which caused quite a ruckus. I’m glad it did. We need to have this discussion.

This posting led to the predictable onslaught of internet trolls calling me crazy, conspiracy theorist, etc., all the talking points that are being masterminded by the sleaze-meisters over at David Brock’s Correct the Record, a Hillary Clinton Super PAC. The post also brought criticism from the mainstream media, but that is no surprise to me. I’ve been there before. In the 2002-3 campaign to stop the Iraq war, others and I were characterized as crazy, conspiracy theorists, etc., as mainstream media shamefully abdicated its role in a functioning democracy by becoming a propaganda arm for Bush and Co. Yes. The New York Times did that, and the Washington Post and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, PBS, NPR etc. We, the millions who across the world were saying no, who were aware of the lies that Bush and Co. were telling, were ignored by the mainstream media, marginalized as radicals and told by pundits to shut our unpatriotic mouths.

So when that happened to me again two weeks ago, often by the same organizations that had marginalized me for my opposition to the war in 2002-3, I recognized the familiarity of it all. Could my post have touched a nerve? It certainly did with Joshua Holland, who wrote in Raw Story that I was involved with a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism.” He then goes on to refute the claims of election fraud with seemingly empirical statistical evidence. Now, I am not a mathematician. But Richard Charnin is. He has two master’s degrees in applied mathematics and has followed presidential elections since 1952. He took issue with Mr. Holland’s article. I defer to his expertise: “Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland.”

Read the rest of the article here. View the 2016 Democratic primaries spreadsheet.

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

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

DATA SOURCES
The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Inline image

 

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland

Election Fraud:  Response to Joshua Holland

Richard Charnin
April 29,2016

Last week,  actor and activist Tim Robbins tweeted on the exit poll discrepancies. And the media presstitutes went after him with a vengeance. Joshua Holland wrote a response in The Nation. He followed  with another hit piece attacking Robbins, Prof. Bob Fitrakis, Lee Camp, Prof. Steven Freeman and myself: On Tim Robbins, election fraud and how nonsense spreads around the Internet.

Robbins responded to Holland in the Huffington Post.  Professor Bob Fitrakis flunked Holland in Social Science 101 (exit polls).  Comedian Lee Camp also responded on his website.   Professor Beth Clarkson defended my math proof. 

 Holland wrote: Monday, actor Tim Robbins caused a stir when he tweeted out a Facebook meme, charging that CNN and The New York Times are blind to a massive conspiracy going on right beneath their noses. It had close to 1,000 retweets when Robbins apparently deleted it.

A quick glance is enough to know that there are problems with the meme. The exit poll numbers are wrong. In Massachusetts, for example, CNN reported that exit polls showed Clinton winning by 2 points, which is very close to her 1.4 percent margin in the final results. In Alabama, CNN reports the exit polls showing Clinton with a 57-point margin, the Facebook meme claims it was 44.7 points, and the final result was 60.4 percent.

But where did Tim Robbins come up with these numbers? I decided to do a bit of reporting, and I ended up chasing this Facebook meme down a rabbit-hole of misinformation and conspiracism. It offers a pretty good case-study of how bullshit can come to dominate our online discourse.

The meme was created by Lee Camp, a political comedian who hosts a weekly show on RT, the Russian foreign news network. It has over 2,000 shares on Facebook as of this writing. Via email, I asked Camp for his source, and he pointed me to a post on Reddit by a user who goes by the handle “turn-trout.” Turn-trout, who didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, claims that these are unadjusted exit polls, and links to a spreadsheet purportedly showing wide discrepancies between the raw data and the final results.

Note: Lee Camp  responded to Holland.

The spreadsheet was created by Richard Charnin, who writes a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s spreadsheet appears to be the basis of a broad swath of viral Internet content alleging widespread election theft during the 2016 primaries, including the work of Free Press editors Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis Charnin seems to think that exit polls can reveal that virtually all our elections have been rigged, writing, “in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy.”

I exchanged some… interesting correspondence with Charnin. After calling me “very biased and misleading” for a recent piece, he claimed that “ALL exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote.” I asked him whether the exit poll data in his spreadsheet were unadjusted, and he said that they were the data released by major media organizations. He then told me that “the mainstream media won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD,” but it’s cool because “Tim Robbins just talked about it.” Finally, the truth emerges.

Virtually all of these claims are based on the idea that exit polls are a telltale sign of fraud. In a follow-up tweet, Tim Robbins explained that, “exit polls are historically pretty accurate,” and “are a heads-up on vote tampering.” Turn-trout agrees, writing, “Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against, and rough indicator of, the degree of election fraud.”

This is also the basis of claims by Wasserman and Fitrakis – who point to the precision of German exit polling to emphasize the point – and Steven Freeman, a Penn State psychologist who authored the book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count.

(Note:  Steve Freeman is not a psychologist. He holds a PhD from MIT’s Sloan School of Management where he teaches research methods and survey design).

So there you have it. They say a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on, and that’s especially true of the internet. Here we have an example of an actor citing a comedian who picked up a claim from an an anonymous Reddit user citing preliminary exit poll data put together by a JFK conspiracy theorist. Bringing it all full circle is The Hill, which ran a story titled, “Actor Tim Robbins blames Sanders losses on ‘voter fraud,’” which will no doubt be shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter.

Last week, I attempted to debunk allegations of widespread election fraud by the Clinton campaign that have been swirling around on social media. My argument was an appeal to common sense: If Hillary Clinton entered the race with a very large lead in the national polls and an enormous amount of support from Democratic Party activists and elected officials, as she did, and then quickly built up a significant lead in pledged delegates, as she did, then at no time since the start of the race, regardless of how unscrupulous her campaign might be, would there be any rational motive for risking infamy by rigging the vote. You don’t need to cheat when you’re winning.

(Note:Holland criticized  Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserstein, both well-respected and prominent activists who have written books on Election Fraud). 

He wroteThat didn’t sit well with Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis, whose earlier piece for The Free Press, “Is the 2016 election already being stripped & flipped?,” I had mentioned briefly in the column. They’ve now published a lengthy broadside accusing me, and The Nation, of not being able to handle the truth when it comes to “election theft.” (It’s an odd charge, given that my Nation colleague Ari Berman has done some of the best reporting in the country on vote suppression.)

It’s unfortunate that Wasserman and Fitrakis didn’t engage my argument (or link to my piece so that readers might judge it for themselves). Instead, they waved away the idea that looking at motive is a legitimate way of evaluating the likelihood that a crime has been committed, writing that the argument was “a bit hard to follow.”

Fitrakis and Wasserman join these very serious problems with innuendo and thin evidence to claim that virtually all elections, including the 2016 primaries, are rigged. They dismiss those of us who don’t buy their claims as being incapable of handling the truth. But skepticism goes both ways, and true skeptics require more concrete evidence than Fitrakis and Wasserman are able to offer.

My response: Holland called it a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism”.   I have concluded based on 15 years of posting that when a naysayer uses the conspiracy meme, he will invariably proceed with misinformation and factual omission. And that is exactly what Holland did.

Joshua does not mention my two masters degrees in applied mathematics and that I have followed presidential elections since 1952.  He  referred to me as a  JFK Conspiracy Theorist, as if that disqualifies me from analyzing election fraud. That was a big mistake; he  apparently believes the thoroughly debunked Single Bullet Theory. That says it all. Joshua failed to do his homework on the mathematical analysis of election fraud and JFK witness deaths. He totally exposed himself as an incompetent researcher.

Holland said that the exit poll results are “wrong”.  Really? What was the basis for that statement?  He has obviously not viewed the data downloaded from CNN. Holland called the numbers “bullshit”.  His article is biased and misleading – a permanent stain on whatever credibility he has. He cannot  fool serious researchers who are aware of the facts  and  the math that prove election fraud.

Holland interviewed  Joe Lenski of Edison Research, the polling firm . But he failed to get Lenski to explain why exit pollsters force a match to the recorded vote – even if the recorded vote is bogus.  Lenski  does not logically explain why ALL exit polls are matched to the recorded vote counts.  He has never provided a rationale for the match. Of course Lenski works for the Corporate Media (the National Election Pool). Holland fails to see the significance of that. He never considers that the recorded vote may be fraudulent. In fact, he never mentions the F-word – nor does anyone else in the corporate media. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

Holland wrote that  Lenski stressed that “pre-election polls are also adjusted to conform their samples to what pollsters know about the populations they’re trying to measure. The irony of all of this is that the adjusted data are far more accurate than the raw data”.

 Are we supposed to take that comment seriously? Apparently Holland does.  If that is the case why won’t the pollsters show us the raw exit poll data in all the precincts polled? And how did they end up with an exact 0.01% match to the recorded vote in the CT primary? Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

Holland needs to study the historical evidence of systemic election fraud

1988-2008 Presidential Exit Polls

In spreadsheets linked from my blog, I provide 1988-2008 historical presidential vote and unadjusted exit poll data.  The Democrats led the exit polls by 52-42% but led the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the 8% discrepancy is one in trillions. Holland does not have a clue about Probability and Statistics 101. He does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy.  The data is available if he would care to truly investigate. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

The data shows that 135 of 274 state presidential exit polls from 1988-2008 exceeded the margin of error – and 131 moved in a “redshift” to the GOP. The probability is ZERO: E-116. That’s 116 zeros after the decimal. Holland does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy. He fails to see the significance of that fact.

The primaries

Sanders has won 12 of 13 caucuses, but only 6 of 27 primaries. Election fraud anomalies were apparent in NY MA IL AZ IA NV OH DE WY WI MO DE MI AL TN GA AR TX. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders led hand-counted precincts in Massachusetts   by 17%, while machine counted precincts went to Clinton by 2%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

The CNN NY Primary exit poll indicated that  Sanders had 48% (officially he had 42.1%). But he may have done better than 48% since ALL exit polls are adjusted throughout the day  to the recorded vote. And hundreds of thousands of voters were disenfranchised  when their registrations were flipped or dropped altogether. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

There was an 11.8% discrepancy between the NY exit poll  (52-48%) and the recorded vote (57.9-42.1%). The probability of the discrepancy is 1 in 120,000. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share declined from the poll to the vote in 21 of 23 exit polls.
The probability P = 1 in 30,000 = binomdist(2,23,0.5,true).  Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 9 of the 23 primaries. The probability of this result being due to chance:
P= 1 in 441 million = 1-BINOMDIST( 8,23,0.025,false). Holland fails to see the significance of that.

As usual, in the recent CT, MD and PA primaries, the exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. The differences between Clinton’s 2-party adjusted exit poll share and the recorded share were: CT .01%;  MD 0.10%;  PA -.17%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

This is how the Pollsters forced a match to the Indiana recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

The mainstream media (including The Nation) won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD. They never discuss malicious, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators that were built to flip the votes. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Will Holland look at the evidence which proves that the primaries are being stolen from Sanders and write about it?

Fitrakis and Wasserman responded: In 2016, the first thing to face is the massive disenfranchisement of millions of voters, mostly citizens of color and youth. We are heartened to see Bernie and Hillary joined together in an Arizona lawsuit.But the long lines and urban registration stripping that we saw in Phoenix, Madison, and elsewhere this spring will spell doom for the Democrats if they cannot guarantee their constituencies’ the right to vote in November.  http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36568-is-hillary-stealing-the-nomination-will-bernie-birth-a-long-term-movement

At this point, we’re not optimistic. The efforts at re-enfranchisement are little and late. Among those doing superb work on this stripping of our voter rolls are the great Greg Palast (www.gregpalast.com), Ari Berman of The Nation, and others.But the electronic flipping of the alleged vote count remains a demon black box. The 2000 election was turned from Gore to Bush by electronic manipulations in Volusia County, Florida. The 2004 election was turned from Kerry to Bush in a Chattanooga basement which transformed a 4.2% Democratic lead into a 2.5% GOP victory in 90 dark minutes. All that could happen again in 2016.

Over the years we’ve respected the work of The Nation’s Josh Holland, who’s expressed concern about our reporting on indications of irregularities that seem to favor Hillary over Bernie. But our stated conclusions on them remain far from conclusive. If we thought we had definitive evidence that the Clinton campaign was stealing the nomination from the Sanders campaign, we’d say so in direct, explicit and unmistakable phrases.Simply put: we do NOT at this point believe they rise to the level of provable theft, as we are certain was the case in 2000 and 2004. We understand concerns and welcome the dialogue. But we’d like to avoid the usual circular firing squad. Writing in The Nation, Josh has deemed it important to mention disagreements with our former collaborator Steve Rosenfeld, and our good friend Mark Hertsgaard. Mark’s writing on global warming has been legend. In 2004 he criticized some of our reporting on the Ohio vote count. We disagreed with him then and still do. Nothing in the past 12 years of our research and writing while based in central Ohio has surfaced that would make us change our reporting on how the 2004 election was stolen. Quite the opposite.

But other comments on the nature of electronic election theft throw up a HUGE red flag. And here we worry about a dangerous gap in the work from The Nation and the left as a whole. If international election standards were applied to the 2016 primaries, eight states – Georgia, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, New York, Tennessee – would be investigated for suspected fraudulent election results, because the actual vote deviates so greatly from the exit polls. Also, the exit polls indicated that Sanders won in Illinois, Massachusetts and Missouri. The e bottom line is this: there is no viable method for monitoring or verifying the electronic vote count in 2016. In a close race, which we expect this fall, the outcome could be flipped in key swing states where GOP governors and secretaries of state are running the elections. This includes most notably Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona, plus North Carolina and Florida (where the situations are slightly different). Steve has called this “a stretch.” He and Josh seem to dismiss the assertion that an election can be electronically stolen as “conspiracy theory,” apparently based on the idea that such thefts would become obvious fodder for an infuriated media and public outrage.This we find this overly trusting and dangerous. Under our current system there is no way to counter-indicate a stolen electronic vote count except by exit polling, for which Josh has expressed contempt. Exit polls in other countries (especially Germany) are highly reliable; here the raw data is too, but can be hard to get. And it’s now standard procedure to have the public numbers “adjusted” to fit official vote counts, fraudulent or otherwise.And even raw data exit polls have no legal standing. —–

Cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore told the Free Press that the computer configuration was set up to allow a “man in the middle attack” to alter Ohio’s votes.The late night shift in the 2004 electronic vote count in 10 decisive swing states was by all accounts a “virtual statistical impossibility,” with the odds against that happening in the millions. But now we are being told the idea that this could indicate a stolen election is “conspiracy theory.” PLEASE!!! If someone – anyone! – can demonstrate EXACTLY how the electronic vote count will be monitored, verified and made clear to the media in 2016, and then guarantee that the public and the courts will react with enforceable fury, we will be eternally grateful.We hope in the meantime The Nation will add to Ari Berman’s fine reporting on the stripping of voter eligibilities an in-depth investigation into the “other shoe” of election theft – the flipping of the electronic vote count. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) raised the “Diebold question” at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing on April 21, 2016. Johnson noted how easy it would be to hack the old voting machines, many that are over 20 years old, and vowed to introduce legislation that would make voting secure.

Finally, we are often asked how, if the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, Obama won in 2008 and 2012. We did, after all, write in 2004 that the 2008 election was being rigged. The answer is simple: it was. But Obama won by far too many votes to have that election credibly stolen. And his campaign was not in denial.  We are happy to hear from Steve that our reporting on Ohio 2004 might have enhanced Obama’s scrutiny on the 2008 vote count. But it should be made clear that Obama’s victory could easily have been flipped had the vote count been closer and had fewer states been so definitively won. We believe he actually won by more than 10 million votes in both 2008 and 2012, but was officially credited with far less.

Where, exactly, is the line beyond which an election can’t be stolen? Do the Democrats need to win by 5%… 10%… to get an official victory? And what then happens to the down-ballot races? We prefer not to see those limits tested again.  And we need to have people prepared to take tangible action. In 2012 Bob Fitrakis filed a successful Election Day lawsuit preventing illegal computer patches being rigged into Ohio’s electronic machines. In a closer race, those patches might have made the difference. We believe the expectation that they would work did cause Karl Rove to do his legendary flipped-out double-take on Fox News as he was told Mitt Romney had lost Ohio. We also reported (as did The Nation) that voting machines in key Cincinnati precincts were financially linked to the Romney family. We each wrote separate articles about that and were each blacklisted by Daily Kos for doing so, even though the vast bulk of Harvey’s 150+ previous blogs on that site were about nuclear power and renewable energy. Some publications that aren’t progressive understand the problem.

Twenty-three minutes into the 2012 Election Day, Forbes took the Free Press reporting seriously, and warned voters of the dangers of private, for-profit companies owning and maintaining voting machines. Over the years we’ve been repeatedly told that we should stop reporting on electronic election theft because it might discourage voter turnout. And that the key to a Democratic victory in 2016 will be another massive vote count victory that will be “too big to steal.” Frankly, we don’t see that happening this year. And we find such talk deeply disturbing.

We have no doubt that innumerable US House and Senate races have been stolen over the years, along with governorships, control of state legislatures, referenda and more, all of it producing a deep reinforcement of the corporate control of our government. We’re also reasonably certain that neither Hillary nor Bernie is likely to amass in November a margin of victory over either Ryan or Trump that would be big enough to negate the possibility of massive disenfranchisement and electronic vote flipping in key states like Ohio, Michigan, Iowa or Arizona. And anyway … why the hell are we even thinking about leaving such a problem unsolved?

This disease needs a definitive cure. We look forward to further reasoned and reasonable dialogue. We invite Josh and Ari to join us on our panel at the upcoming Left Forum in New York in May. We welcome a public discussion with Steve and Mark in California.Above all, we hope to see those millions of Bernie supporters joining us at the reactor sites, the banks, the women’s health centers, the shelters, the schools and so many other critical hot spots in our corporate-plagued society, no matter who wins (or how) in November.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of six books on election integrity, including the new Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft(www.freepress.org and www.solartopia.org). Bob’s Fitrakis Files are at www.freepress.org. Harvey’s Organic Spiral of US History is coming soon at www.solartopia.org.

DATA SOURCES
The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Inline image

I challenge Holland to try to refute  the data and analysis in these books:
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

 Perhaps Holland will learn something and see the significance of these posts:  
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/1988-2008-unadjuste…/  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/

 

 

 
41 Comments

Posted by on April 29, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

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

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis