RSS

Tag Archives: Party-ID

2016 True Vote Models in Confirmation: Party-ID and Returning 2012 Voters

2016 True Vote Models in Confirmation: Party-ID and Returning 2012 Voters

Richard Charnin
Aug.28, 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

Pollsters no longer ask the question “How did you vote in the last election”? Why? Because posing the question provides an analyst with data to indicate election fraud.

In 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008, in order to match the recorded vote (SOP), the exit pollsters (who work for the MSM) required a greater turnout of Bush voters from the prior election than were still alive. This is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. If the exit poll is impossible, the recorded vote it was forced to match must also be impossible. That is proof of fraud. It’s why the exit pollsters (the MSM) no longer ask the question “Who Did You Vote for in the Last Election”?

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

These 2016 models calculate a true vote estimate for each state.
Model 1: Obama and Romney voter turnout in 2016.
Model 2: Gallup Party-ID voter affiliation. Used in the 2016 forecast model.

Base case vote shares were identical in each model. The shares were forced to match the recorded vote assuming equal 95% turnout. To calculate the True Vote, returning Obama voter turnout in 2016 was adjusted to 89%. The assumption is that 6% of Obama voters were Bernie Sanders 2016 primary voters who did not return to vote in the presidential election.

Important note: Since the vote shares were forced to match a likely fraudulent recorded vote (the Mainstream Media was heavily biased for Clinton), the following results are conservative. Trump probably did at least 2% better than indicated in the base case calculations. View the sensitivity analysis.

So how can we determine Obama and Romney returning voter turnout in 2016? Where can we get that information? Why don’t the exit pollsters provide the data? Should we just guess or estimate turnout based on historical elections? I chose the latter.

Using the prior 2012 vote as a basis, a voter mortality estimate is factored in. Approximately 4% of voters pass between each election (1% annual mortality). The simplest approach is to assume an equal 95% turnout of Obama and Romney voters still living. Now we have a plausible approximation of the (unknown) mix of returning voters. Since we know the current election recorded vote, the number of new 2016 voters who did not vote in 2012 can be calculated: DNV = 2016 total vote – returning 2012 voters.

The first step is to force the candidate shares of returning voters to match the recorded vote assuming equal 95% turnout.

In the True Vote calculation, the percentage of returning Obama voters was lowered to 89% to reflect disenchantment among Bernie Sanders’ primary voters who did not vote in the general election or voted for Jill Stein or Donald Trump.

To view the sensitivity of the True Vote to Trump shares of returning Obama and Romney voters, a matrix of total vote shares is calculated in 1% increments around the Trump base case estimate. There are 25 vote share scenario combinations in the 5×5 matrix. Corresponding matrices of Clinton shares and vote margins are also included. The base case is in the central cell.

2016 Presidential State Election Model Summary
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=667189511

Recorded Vote
Clinton: 48.25-46.17% (2.83 million votes)
Trump: 306 Electoral Votes

Model 1
(returning 2012 voters)
2012 recorded vote: Obama 51.03-Romney 47.19% (4.98 million)
2016 voter turnout: Obama 89%, Romney 95%
Trump: 47.8-46.7% (1.51 million votes)
Trump: 323 Electoral Votes

Model 2
Gallup National Voter Affiliation Survey: 32D-28R-40I (state adjusted)
1. Trump and Clinton split the undecided vote:
Trump: 46.8-45.8% (1.35 million votes)
Trump: 307 Electoral Votes

2. Trump had 75% of the undecided vote:
Trump: 48.1-44.5% (4.97 million votes)
Trump: 352 Electoral Votes

The National Model
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=1768941212

Vote share sensitivity analysis (Model 1)
-Best case: Trump had 92% of returning Romney voters and 9% of Obama voters
Trump by 49.4-45.0% (5.98 million votes)
-Base case: Trump had 90% of returning Romney voters and 7% of Obama voters
Trump by 47.8-46.7% (1.51 million votes)
-Worst case: Trump had 88% of returning  Romney voters and 5% of Obama voters
Clinton by 48.3-46.1% (2.97 million votes).

Mathematical Proof: the 2004 election was stolen
The 2004 National Exit Poll was impossible as it was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%) using an impossible number of returning Bush 2000 voters. It indicated that 52.6 million (43% of the 2004 electorate) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 45.3 million (37%) were returning Gore voters. But Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. It indicated an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters in 2004.

2004 Election Fraud
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/2004-election-fraud-overwhelming-statistical-proof-that-it-was-stolen/

2004 Spreadsheet 1
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&usp=sheets_web#gid=7

2004 Spreadsheet 2
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x2WCPJautd_eZPIfkmW9W9vD2p1Zu0ZlvgqV_gUwLNM/edit#gid=13

Advertisements
 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Trump approval rating: MSM still oversampling Democrats

Richard Charnin
Updated: Jan.20, 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

Just like in the pre-election and exit polls, the mainstream media’s approval rating inflated the Democratic share of the electorate.

The latest Washington Post poll indicates a 40% Trump approval rating based on an
8-point Democratic advantage in Party ID: 31D, 23R, 46I. But the Gallup party affiliation survey has a 3-point Republican advantage: 25D, 28R,44I.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The Rasmussen daily tracking poll as of Jan.20 has a Trump 56% approval rating! http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan20

The National Exit Poll is always adjusted to match the recorded vote.
The 2016 poll indicated Party-ID was 36D, 33R, 31I.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president
The Nov.6 Gallup survey had Party-ID at 31D, 27R, 36I.

From Zero Hedge:
In the month leading up to the election on November 8th, we repeatedly demonstrated how the mainstream media polls from the likes of ABC/Washington Post, CNN and Reuters repeatedly manipulated their poll samples to engineer their desired results, namely a large Hillary Clinton lead (see “New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through ‘Oversamples'” and “ABC/Wapo Effectively Admit To Poll Tampering As Hillary’s “Lead” Shrinks To 2-Points”). In fact, just 16 days prior to the election an ABC/Wapo poll showed a 12-point lead for Hillary, a result that obviously turned out to be embarrassingly wrong for the pollsters.

But, proving they still got it, ABC/Washington Post and CNN are out with a pair of polls on Trump’s favorability this morning that sport some of the most egregious “oversamples” we’ve seen. The ABC/Wapo poll showed an 8-point sampling margin for Democrats with only 23% of the results taken from Republicans…

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-17/new-abc-wapo-poll-shows-drop-trump-favorabilty-through-aggressive-oversamples

https://libertywritersnews.com/2017/01/urgent-media-caught-lying-trumps-pre-inauguration-approval-ratings-real-numbers/

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/pre-election-and-national-exit-poll-categories-vs-the-true-vote/

Party-ID

2016 Nine Pre-election poll average 
……. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 39% 88.4% 6.00% 3.0%
Rep 32% 5.00% 87.8% 4.0%
Ind. 29% 33.8% 43.6% 13.0%
… 100% 47.4% 46.0% 6.2%
Votes 136.2 64.6 62.7 8.5
Margin -2.0

National Exit Poll (adjusted to match the recorded vote)
……. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89.0% 8.00% 3.0%
Rep 33% 8.00% 88.0% 4.0%
Ind. 31% 42.0% 46.0% 12.0%
… 100% 47.7% 46.2% 6.1%
Votes 136.2 65.0 62.9 8.3
Margin -2.1

2016 Nine Pre-election poll average (Gallup Party-ID)
……. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 88.4% 6.00% 3.00%
Rep 28% 5.00% 87.8% 4.00%
Ind. 40% 33.8% 43.6% 13.0%
… 100% 45.1% 47.5% 7.3%
Votes 136.2 61.4 64.7 9.9
Margin 3.2

National Exit Poll (adjusted to match the estimated True Vote)
……. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 88.0% 9.00% 3.0%
Rep 28% 7.00% 89.0% 4.0%
Ind. 40% 38.0% 51.0% 11.0%
… 100% 45.3% 48.2% 6.5%
Votes 136.2 61.7 65.7 8.8
Margin 3.9

Trump Trump %Independent
%Rep 49.0% 51.0% 53.0%
91%. 47.96% 48.76% 49.56%
89%. 47.40% 48.20% 49.0%
87%. 46.84% 47.64% 48.44%

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 19, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

SUMMARY VOTE SHARE/ ELECTORAL VOTE ANALYSIS

Richard Charnin
Dec.20, 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

Clinton won the national popular vote by 2.8 million votes.  She won California by 4.27 million, New York by 1.7 million and Illinois by 945,000 votes – a total of 6.9 million.  Her margins in these states were implausible.  Trump won the other 48 states by 4.1 million.

The 28 unadjusted state exit polls are implausible. Trump won the True Vote. He won Independents by 7.7% over Clinton. Independents outnumbered Democrats by 6.7%.

Unadjusted Exit Polls
1-Use Party-ID from the CNN exit poll (matched to reported vote).
2-Independent vote shares adjusted to match the adj. exit poll.

CNN Exit Poll (Reported Vote)
Clinton Trump Trump EV
65,719 62,890 306
48.2% 46.2% (total reported vote)
49.3% 45.2% 224 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

Unadjusted State Exit Polls (implausible)
Clinton Trump Trump EV
48.5% 44.8% 241
49.6% 43.6% 159 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

True Vote Model 1 (use state-adjusted Gallup National Party-ID)
Clinton Trump Trump EV
47.3% 46.5% 279
48.1% 45.6% 197 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

True Vote Model 2: Sensitivity Analysis (Gallup Party-ID)

Scenario 1: Undecided Voters to Trump: 50%
Clinton Trump Trump EV
45.1% 47.5% 306
45.5% 46.8% 224 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

Scenario 2: Undecided Voters to Trump: 60%
Clinton Trump Trump EV
44.7% 47.9% 313
45.0% 47.3% 231 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

Scenario 3: Undecided Voters to Trump: 70%
Clinton Trump Trump EV
44.3% 48.3% 342
44.5% 47.8% 260 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

OHIO
Reported Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 34% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 37% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 29% 38% 52% 8% 2%
Calc 100% 43.6% 52.1% 3.1% 1.3%
Reported 99.3% 43.6% 51.7% 3.2% 0.8%
Votes 5,496 2,394 2,841 174 46
    Margin 447 8.1%  
Exit Poll Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 34% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 37% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 29% 50% 35% 8% 7%
Match 100% 47.0% 47.2% 3.1% 2.7%
Unadj.EP 100% 47.0% 47.1% 3.2% 2.7%
Votes 5,496 2,583 2,589 176 148
    Margin 5 0.1%
True Vote Gallup adj. Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 32.4% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 33.4% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 34.2% 38% 52% 8% 2%
TVM1 100.0% 43.9% 51.4% 3.4% 1.3%
95.1% 41.6% 46.7% 4.4% 2.4%
TVM 100% 43.6% 49.6% 4.0% 2.8%
Votes 5,496 2,396 2,729 220 152
    Margin 332 5.1%  
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 20, 2016 in 2016 election

 

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

Analysis of 28 State Exit Polls vs. Recorded Vote vs. True Vote

Richard Charnin
Updated: Dec. 14, 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

Only 28 states were exit polled.  This analysis shows why the unadjusted exit polls are not plausible. Trump won the True Vote. 
a) He won Independents by  7.7% over Clinton.
b) Independents outnumbered Democrats by 6.7%.

Methodology
The state Party-ID crosstab (reported vote) is the basis for the analysis.
Exit Polls: Reported Party-ID weights. Independent vote shares adjusted to force a match to the total exit poll shares.

True Vote Calculation
State Party-ID is based on the Gallup National voter affiliation survey.
Method 1- Reported vote shares (CNN).
Method 2- Vote shares calculated in the Election Model.

Summary (28 states)
Unadjusted exit polls: Clinton leads 47.6-44.6% (unweighted average)
Party-ID: 35.1D – 32.7R – 32.2I (Dems outnumber Independents by 2.9%)
Share of Independents: Clinton 44.0-Trump 40.6% (not plausible)

Reported Vote (CNN)
Trump 47.3-46.7% (unweighted average)
Party-ID: 35.1D – 32.7R – 32.2I (Dems outnumber Independents by 2.9%)
Share of Independents: Trump 48.0-Clinton 40.3% (plausible)

True Vote
Model 1: Trump 46.7-46.0% (unweighted, reported vote shares)
Model 2: Trump 48.4-43.8% (unweighted, Election Model shares)
Party-ID: 32.0D – 29.3R – 38.7I (Independents outnumber Dems by 6.7%)

States Flipped from the Reported to the True Vote
True Vote 1:
Trump to Clinton: PA and FL (42 EV)
Clinton to Trump: VA NV NH CO (39 EV)
True Vote 2:
Trump to Clinton: PA
Clinton to Trump: VA NV NH MN ME CO …. WA OR NM

Notes:
-The model is probably wrong on WA and OR flipping to Trump.
-Trump leads 51.2-43.8% in the 22 states (and  D.C.) which were not polled.
-Clinton won NY and CA by at least 5 million votes, almost double her 2.7 national margin. Her True Vote margin in NY and CA is approximately 2.5 million.

The calculations are displayed as follows:
Unadjusted ….. Reported…..True Vote
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

Link to TDMS Research exit poll table
http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 13, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Nevada: Recorded Vote vs. Exit Poll vs. True Vote

Nevada: Recorded Vote vs. Exit Poll vs. True Vote

Richard Charnin
Dec. 8, 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

Clinton won Nevada by 27,000 votes (47.9-45.5%).
She led the exit poll by 50.4-43.2% (86,000 votes)
The True Vote Model indicates that Trump won by 19,000 votes (47.2-45.4)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

The unadjusted NV exit poll is implausible based on two factors:
1) The Democratic Party-ID share (36D-28R-36I) is inflated. True Party-ID  is derived from the Gallup voter affiliation survey (40I- 32D- 28R). It is estimated as 31.3D -27.5R -41.2I.
2) Clinton’s  45-43% winning margin  of Independents required to match the “unadjusted” exit poll is implausibly high. Trump won Independents by 50-37% in the NV exit poll (matched to the recorded vote)  and by 48-44% nationally.

Summary Statistics

NV Unadjusted exit poll
Clinton wins: 50.4-43.2% (86,000 vote margin)
Clinton won Independents: 45-43%
Party ID: 36D- 28R- 36I

NV Reported Vote (CNN)
Clinton won: 47.9-45.5% (27,000 vote margin)
Trump won Independents: 50-37%
Party ID: 36D- 28R- 36I

NV True Vote Model
Trump wins 47.2-45.4% (19,000 vote margin)
Trump wins Independents: 50-36%
Party ID: 31.3D -27.5R -41.2I (derived from Gallup)

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/states/nevada
http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

Nevada          
Unadj Exit Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Other
Dem 36.0% 90% 8% 1% 1%
Rep 28.0% 8% 88% 2% 2%
Ind 36.0% 45% 43% 6% 6%
Calc 100.0% 50.8% 43.0% 3.1% 3.1%
Unadjusted 100.0% 50.9% 43.2% 3.7% 2.2%
Votes (000) 1,113 567 481 41 24
    Margin -86 -7.7%  
Reported Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Other
Dem 36.0% 90% 8% 1% 1%
Rep 28.0% 8% 88% 2% 2%
Ind 36.0% 37% 50% 7% 6%
Calc 100.0% 48.0% 45.5% 3.4% 3.1%
Reported 100.0% 47.9% 45.5% 3.3% 3.3%
Votes (000) 1,113 538 511 37 27
    Margin -27 -2.4%
True Vote Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Other
Dem 31.3% 90% 8% 1% 1%
Rep 27.5% 8% 88% 2% 2%
Ind 41.2% 36% 50% 7% 7%
Calc 100.0% 45.2% 47.3% 3.7% 3.7%
TVM bef UVA 94.5% 42.7% 44.4% 4.7% 2.7%
True Vote 100.0% 45.4% 47.2% 4.7% 2.7%
Votes (000) 1,113 506 525 53 29
    Margin 19 1.8%  
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 8, 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 (Nov.3): Trump 98% Win Probability

2016 ELECTION MODEL (Nov.3): Trump 98% Win Probability

Richard Charnin
Nov.3, 2016

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll

The purpose of the Election Model  is to show the effects of changes in voter party affiliation (Dem, Rep, Ind). There are currently nine polls in the model. Each poll is shown using a) the actual poll shares and Party-ID weights and b) the actual poll shares using the Gallup party-affiliation survey. Gallup is the only poll dedicated to national voter party affiliation.

Undecided voters are allocated to derive the final adjusted TRUE poll share. Typically the challenger (in this case Trump) gets approximately 75% of the undecided vote.

Clinton leads Trump 44.9-43.3%  in the actual 9-poll average.

After adjusting the polls for the Gallup voter affiliation split (40I-32D-28R):
Trump leads Clinton 44.7-41.7% and by 336-202 EV before undecided voter allocation.
Trump leads Clinton 49.0-43.2% after undecided voter allocation. 
There is a 98% probability that Trump will win the popular vote.

THE MODEL SHOWS THAT THE PRE-ELECTION POLLS ARE OVERSTATING HILLARY CLINTON’S VOTE BY INFLATING THE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS COMPARED TO INDEPENDENTS AND REPUBLICANS.

As I have stated many times, each poll has a different party-ID.Theoretically, they should all have the SAME Party-ID since these are NATIONAL polls – and there is only ONE theoretical NATIONAL Party-ID split at any given point in time.

The popular Vote Win Probability and estimated Electoral Vote are calculated for each poll. The 2016 party-ID for each state is calculated by applying the  proportional  change  from the 2012 party-ID  to  the current Gallup 2016 survey Party-ID. The state votes  are calculated by applying the published national poll shares to the 2016 state party-ID. The electoral vote is then calculated.

The built-in SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS shows the effect of incremental vote shares on the total vote.

Those who have written models can appreciate the methodology. So can individuals who can apply basic logic.The model uses actual published data. If there is another quantitative modeler out there who has written a similar model to approximate the True poll shares, I would like to see it.

9-POLL AVERAGE Gallup Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 40.0% 4% 28% 44% 6%
Dem 32.0% 1% 91% 6% 2%
Rep 28.0% 1% 5% 90% 3%
Total 92.5% 2.2% 41.7% 44.7% 3.9%
Votes 119,448 2,840 53,863 57,736 5,009
EVote 538 0 202 336 0
Nov. 3 Party  ID
ACTUAL Ind Dem Rep HRC Trump
Ipsos 11.9% 43.5% 36.6% 42% 38%
IBD 27.4% 39.9% 32.7% 44% 44%
Rasmussen 32% 40% 28% 42% 45%
Quinnipiac 26% 40% 34% 47% 40%
Fox News 19% 43% 38% 44% 41%
CNN 43% 31% 26% 49% 44%
ABC 29% 37% 29% 47% 45%
Gravis 27% 40% 33% 46% 45%
LA Times 30% 38% 32% 43% 48%
Average 27.3% 39.2% 32.1% 44.9% 43.3%
GALLUP ADJUSTED Elect  Vote Popular Vote Undec.Alloc.
40I-32D-28R HRC Trump HRC Trump Win Prob Win Prob
Ipsos 37.9% 39.4% 232 306 73.4% 99.4%
IBD 40.9% 45.8% 180 358 96.8% 99.8%
Rasmussen 37.2% 47.4% 46 492 100.0% 100.0%
Quinnipiac 44.7% 40.8% 335 203 6.5% 35.8%
Fox News 39.6% 41.6% 218 320 79.9% 97.3%
CNN 48.6% 44.4% 335 203 7.0% 13.7%
ABC 46.4% 49.7% 202 336 86.5% 87.4%
Gravis 42.6% 45.6% 216 322 86.7% 99.1%
LA Times 40.7% 49.4% 54 484 99.9% 100.0%
Average 41.7% 44.7% 202 336 87.2% 98.1%
Sensitivity Analysis  9-Poll Average        
 Gallup 40I-32D-28R      
Trump % Rep
Trump 86.0% 88.0% 90.0% 92.0% 94.0%
% Ind Trump
48% 45.2% 45.8% 46.3% 46.9% 47.4%
44% 43.6% 44.2% 44.7% 45.3% 45.8%
40% 42.0% 42.6% 43.1% 43.7% 44.2%
Clinton
48% 41.2% 40.7% 40.1% 39.6% 39.0%
44% 42.8% 42.3% 41.7% 41.2% 40.6%
40% 44.4% 43.9% 43.3% 42.8% 42.2%
 Margin
48% 4.0% 5.1% 6.2% 7.3% 8.4%
44% 0.8% 1.9% 3.0% 4.1% 5.2%
40% -2.4% -1.3% -0.2% 0.9% 2.0%
Vote Margin (000)
48% 4,730 6,068 7,406 8,744 10,081
44% 908 2,246 3,583 4,921 6,259
40% -2,915 -1,577 -239 1,099 2,437
 9-poll average Vote Share Electoral Vote
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Total 41.7% 44.7% 202 336
AK 29.6% 49.9% 0 3
AL 36.7% 51.4% 0 9
AR 38.6% 49.0% 0 6
AZ 36.3% 47.9% 0 11
CA 44.7% 41.3% 55 0
CO 37.6% 46.8% 0 9
CT 42.6% 40.7% 7 0
DC 66.6% 23.7% 3 0
DE 46.9% 40.0% 3 0
FL 41.2% 45.2% 0 29
GA 39.8% 48.0% 0 16
HI 46.4% 42.1% 4 0
IA 37.9% 46.4% 0 6
ID 32.1% 54.9% 0 4
IL 45.3% 42.7% 20 0
IN 38.6% 49.0% 0 11
KS 32.4% 52.7% 0 6
KY 47.9% 42.2% 8 0
LA 36.6% 46.0% 0 8
MA 43.8% 37.4% 11 0
MD 51.0% 36.9% 10 0
ME 39.2% 44.3% 0 4
MI 43.5% 44.3% 0 16
MN 43.1% 45.1% 0 10
MO 39.7% 48.4% 0 10
MS 38.8% 49.4% 0 6
MT 35.3% 52.8% 0 3
NC 43.5% 42.6% 15 0
ND 37.6% 50.4% 0 3
NE 34.8% 52.4% 0 5
NH 36.2% 46.9% 0 4
NJ 40.9% 41.4% 0 14
NM 45.8% 41.4% 5 0
NV 41.7% 44.7% 0 6
NY 48.6% 37.9% 29 0
OH 41.0% 47.1% 0 18
OK 42.1% 46.8% 0 7
OR 41.6% 43.6% 0 7
PA 46.3% 42.6% 20 0
RI 47.0% 35.5% 4 0
SC 39.7% 48.4% 0 9
SD 36.6% 50.8% 0 3
TN 37.1% 50.7% 0 11
TX 39.2% 47.9% 0 38
UT 30.3% 57.8% 0 6
VA 40.5% 47.4% 0 13
VT 46.1% 41.2% 3 0
WA 42.5% 47.0% 0 12
WI 42.2% 46.1% 0 10
WV 47.7% 39.8% 5 0
WY 25.8% 62.5% 0 3
 
7 Comments

Posted by on November 3, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis