RSS

Tag Archives: richard charnin

Seth Rich/JFK Mortality Probability Calculator

Richard Charnin
May 20, 2017 (updated 6/12/17)

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

It’s not just about Seth Rich. Applied Mathematics indicates a virtual 100% probability of a cover-up.

There were n=6 suspicious deaths in T=5 weeks (0.10 years). Mortality rate R=0.0002. Assuming a random group of N individuals, the probability that it was just a coincidence is
N Probability
500  1 in 900 trillion
1000 1 in 14 trillion
3000 1 in 20 billion
30000 1 in 32000

There were 7 suspicious deaths (assumed to be homicides) in 3 months. The probability is virtually ZERO it is a coincidence given so many suspicious deaths in such a short period of time. How many DNC voter data admins were there? How many DNC process servers? How many HRC biographers? How many Assange lawyers? How many Wikileaks founders? How many UN officials preparing to testify? How many DNC officials? How many investigative reporters on the Clintons? Are any of these deaths being investigated? Any suspects?

4/18: John Jones, lawyer who defended Assange, run over by train.
6/22: John Ashe, UN official, barbell fell on neck day before he was going to testify on DNC and Clinton.
6/23: Mike Flynn,48, died day he reported on Clinton Foundation (COD unknown).
7/10: Seth Rich, DNC staffer, shot twice in back. Assange offered $20K reward.
7/25: Joe Montano,47, DNC, heart attack, died day before convention.
8/01: Victor Thorn, author of books exposing Clintons, gunshot wound.
8/02: Shawn Lucas, DNC process server, lethal combination of drugs.

In addition, consider these 2 suspicious deaths (n=9)
Michael Ratner (Wikileaks NY lawyer) died in May 2016 from cancer.
Gavin McFayden (Wikileaks founder) died in Oct 2016 from cancer.

What is the probability that in a random group of N individuals, n would die unnaturally in T years given group mortality rate R? Three (R, n, T) of the 4 parameters are known constants. The only unknown is N, the number of individuals in the study.

There were 7 suspicious deaths in 3 months:
n = 7
R = 0.0002 (DC homicide rate; 135 homicides/681170 pop.)
T = 3 months (0.25 Year).
N = relevant DNC/Wikileaks population.
E = N*R*T =N*0.0002*0.25 (expected number of homicides).

The  Poisson distribution function calculates the probability of rare events. The probability of n homicides when E are expected is P = poisson (n,E,false).

Assume N = 1,000, the probability n=
3 is P= 1 in 52 thousand
4 is P= 1 in 4.2 million
5 is P= 1 in 422 million
6 is P= 1 in 51 billion
7 is P= 1 in 7.2 trillion

Assume: n=7, T= 0.25 (3 months), R=0.0002 and
N= 500, P = 1 in 902.1 trillion
N= 1,000, P = 1 in 7.2 trillion
N= 3,000, P = 1 in 3.6 billion
N= 10,000, P = 1 in 1.1 million

Since N is unknown, let’s view a SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS table over a range of N for n=5,6,7,8,9:

Probability of n homicides in a random group of
n 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
5 0.02% 0.31% 1.41% 3.61%
6 0.00% 0.05% 0.35% 1.20%
7 0.00% 0.01% 0.08% 0.34%
8 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.09%
9 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%

The analysis assumes the 7 deaths were all homicides. If they were a combination of 3 homicides, 2 accidents, 1 suicide and 1 heart attack, we use a weighted mortality rate. This is conservative as the “accidents” and “suicides” were likely homicides. The heart attack was also highly suspicious.

………………..National Weighted for T=.25 (3 months)
COD………. n Rate……… Rate
Accident.. 2 0.00038 0.00076
Suicide…. 1 0.00012 0.00012
Homicide. 3 0.00005 0.00015
Natural?.. 1 0.00173 0.00173 heart attack/cancer
Total…….7 0.00228 0.00039

For n=7, N= 1000, R = 0.00039, T = 0.25 (3 months)
Probability: P = 1 in 60 billion.

For n=5 homicides, N=1000, T= 0.27 (14 weeks), R = 0.00005
P = 1 in 275 billion

For n =7 (5 homicides, 2 heart attacks), N=1000, T= 0.25, R = 0.00052
P = 1 in 8 billion.

For n=9 (5 homicides, 2 heart attacks and 2 cancers):
R=0.0008, N=1000, T=0.5 (6 months)
P = 1 in 2.5 billion.

You can run the spreadsheet calculator for any combination of N, n, R and T. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1htajNqLQrV9M4jmwWUN7MweelfN2ZCwr8KB-YeO7r10/edit#gid=0

https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance

Probability of 0-7 homicides in a random group of 40,000 over 3 months

No automatic alt text available.

No automatic alt text available.

 

JFK WITNESS DEATHS
In 1964-78, there were an estimated 1500 JFK-related material witnesses, of whom 122 died suspiciously. Seventy-eight(78) of the 122 were officially ruled unnatural. Of the 78, 34 were homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides and 4 unknown. The probability of 78 unnatural deaths: 2.7E-31 (1 in a million trillion trillion).

Just 12 accidents and 3 suicides were expected statistically, therefore approximately 60 of the 78 unnatural deaths were likely homicides.

Of the remaining 44 “natural” deaths (heart attacks, sudden cancers, other), approximately 25-30 were homicides based on the total number of expected deaths. Therefore, there were 85-90 homicides among the 122 suspicious deaths. For 10,000 witnesses, Probability: 5.5E-47

<https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/executive-action-jfk-witness-deaths-and-the-london-times-actuary/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FmXudDf6pqisxq_mepIC6iuG47RkDskPDWzQ9L7Lykw/edit#gid=3

Simkin JFK Index of 656 key individuals: 44 homicides, Probability = 4.7 E-60 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FmXudDf6pqisxq_mepIC6iuG47RkDskPDWzQ9L7Lykw/edit#gid=81

 
6 Comments

Posted by on May 20, 2017 in 2016 election, JFK, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Election Justice USA: Evidence of Massive Election Fraud in the Primaries

Richard Charnin
April 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 Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

An excellent article from “Project Censored 2017”. http://projectcensored.org/clintonistasdnc-illegally-stole-democratic-primaries-bernie-sanders/

On July 25th, 2016, Election Justice USA (EJUSA) released a hundred-page report compiling evidence of massive election fraud during the 2016 Democratic primaries. Election Justice USA is a non-partisan organization that consists of attorneys, technologists, journalists, statisticians, and activists.

Essentially, EJUSA concludes that Bernie Sanders may have lost an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates due to specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Their conclusions? The combination of voter suppression, registration tampering, voter purging, and the manipulation of computerized voting machines, likely cost Bernie Sanders the election.
….
Additionally, Election Justice USA found that the computer counts differed widely from the exit poll projections, but only for the Democratic Party primaries. According to election analyst Richard Charnin, Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.

Charnin reported that the probability of this occurring is 1 in 77 billion, which raises the strong possibility of election fraud. Yet, almost no discrepancies were found in the data for the Republican Party primaries. This is particularly remarkable, because the exit polls were conducted on the same day, in the same precincts, with the same interviewers, and used the same methodologies for both the parties. So, this evidence suggests that the computer counts were only accurate for the Republican Party, while the computer counts for the Democratic Party primaries remain largely unverified.

more….

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 29, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

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

The MSM just interviewed the authors of  Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign on the reasons for Clinton’s loss.  I commented to Chris Mathews and Brian Williams of MSNBC as well as FOX and CBS on how MSM pollsters rigged the pre-election polls for Clinton.

FYI: Your guests may not have looked at my 2016 Election model. It was based adjustments to final pre-election polls which were biased for Clinton. The Democratic Party-ID share was overstated at the expense of Independents who went solidly for Trump. In addition, there is strong evidence that votes were stolen from Jill Stein – by Clinton.

The 2016 Model projected Trump’s 306 RECORDED EV. But he actually had approximately 351 TRUE EV after adjusting for late undecided voters. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/2016-election-model-forecast/

Recorded Vote: Clinton 48.3-46.2%, Trump 306-232 EV
Recorded Vote Forecast: Trump 44.4-42.9% with 306-232 EV
True Vote Model: Trump 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV

Note: I exactly forecast the RECORDED EV in the last three elections: 365, 332, 306. In each case the winner did better in the True Vote than the Recorded vote.

Here is the proof: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 24, 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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 48.5-44.3% with 351-187 EV.

Forecast Methodology

The 2016 party-ID for each state is calculated by applying a proportional  change  from the 2012 party-ID based on  the Gallup 2016 national survey. The popular vote win probability and corresponding Electoral Vote are estimated for each pre-election poll. State votes are forecast by applying national 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…….351….. 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/

 9-POLL  AVG  Gallup
 Before UVA Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 40% 5% 33% 44% 8%
Dem 32% 1% 89% 6% 2%
Rep 28% 1% 5% 89% 3%
Total 94.6% 2.6% 42.9% 44.4% 4.7%
Electoral Vote 538 0 232 306 0
 Expected EV      228   310 
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   232 306   96.1%
True EV       after UVA 187 351   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
 
6 Comments

Posted by on November 7, 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: , , , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis