RSS

Tag Archives: richard charnin

2018 House Election: Dems needed a 5.6% popular vote margin to win the House

Richard Charnin
Jan. 20, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

Nate Silver calculated that the Dems needed a 5.6% popular vote margin to win the House (218-217). https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

The Dems won by 8% (53.1-45.1%, 8.9 million recorded votes) a 235-200 seat margin. 

But the Dems won 32 of 38 tossups- a 1 in 100,000 probability, an indicator of fraud. Thirty-three of the 38 tossups were held by Repubs. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2018/11/11/2018-house-probability-analysis-indicates-fraud/

Rasmussen was the only pollster to project a Repub win: 46-45%.  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2018_generic_congressional_vote-6185.html

The National Generic Exit Poll was forced to closely match the recorded vote. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nB_kFzxGOEDQoNU6X1x7YyG6Mc3-Tb1S1r8TjmamwqQ/edit#gid=210218497

2018 NEP Party ID Republicans Democrats Other
Republicans 33% 94% 6% 0
Democrats 37% 4% 95% 1%
Independents 30% 42% 54% 4%
Calc share 100% 45.10% 53.33% 1.57%
Calc vote 111,478,885 50,276,977 59,451,689 1,750,218
Popular vote 111,835,736 50,449,312 59,379,804 2,006,620
Popular share 100% 45.10% 53.10% 1.80%
House 201 234

Assuming Silver’s analysis,  a Dem popular vote margin under 5.6% would result in the Repubs winning the House. For example, if the Repubs had 47% of Independents, keeping other NEP percentages constant, the  Dems would have a 51.8-46.6% win (5.2% margin, 5.6 million votes) but the Repubs would win the House.

Generic Party-ID Rep Dem Other
Rep 33% 94% 6% 0%
Dem 37% 4% 95% 1%
Ind  30% 47% 49% 4%
Share 46.60% 51.83% 1.57%
Votes 51,408 57,177 1,732

A 1% gain/loss in margin results in a gain/loss of approximately 7 seats =17/2.6. (17=235-218; 2.6= 8.2-5.6)

Dem Margin Dem Seats
8.23% 235
7.36% 230
6.49% 225
5.63% 218
4.78% 215
3.93% 210
3.09% 205

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 20, 2019 in 2018 Elections

 

Tags: , ,

Repub California House races too close to call flipped to the Dems

Richard Charnin
Nov. 21, 2018

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

The Repubs led by 4% in each of 4 districts which flipped to the Dems. The win probability was 85% in each of the districts (4.0% margin of error).

The Dems led by 203-194 seats on Election Day with 38 tossups. On Nov. 21, the Dems won the House by 235-200, winning 32 of 38 tossups – a 1 in 100,000 probability. An even 19-19 split of the  tossups would have resulted in a 222-213 Dem win. Then the GOP  would need just five additional seats to win the House.

……………….Poll………………Vote
……………Dem Rep ….. Dem Rep Margin
CA10……. 47 45  -2…… 50.9 49.1  -1.8
CA25……. 44 48   4…… 51.7 48.3  -3.4

CA39……. 48 52   4…… 50.5 49.5  -1.0
Cisneros vs. Kim (R) vote change from Election Day to 11/16

CA45……. 46 50   4…… 50.8 49.2  -1.6
CA48……. 44 48   4…… 52.0 48.0  -4.0 Rohrabacher (R) lost after 30 years in Congress

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/house/2018_elections_house_map.html

The Democrats had 300,000 more votes in Orange County Congressional races than for Democrat governor Gavin Newsom. https://web.archive.org/web/20181119210758/https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/voter-fraud-orange-county-numbers-dont-add-up-democrats-had-300000-more-votes-for-congressional-seats-than-for-governor/

Tip of the iceberg?
“Prosecutors have charged nine people with a dozen felony counts for allegedly offering money and cigarettes to homeless people on Skid Row in exchange for false and forged signatures on ballot petitions and voter registration forms, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office announced today”.

Click to access 112018_Nine_Charged_in_Large_Scale_Voter_Fraud_Scheme_on_Skid_Row.pdf

 
3 Comments

Posted by on November 21, 2018 in 2018 Elections

 

Tags: ,

Exposing the 2016 Popular Vote Myth

Exposing the 2016 Popular Vote Myth

Richard Charnin

April 5, 2018

The myth that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million is parroted daily by pundits, even Trump supporters. Clinton won a fraudulent recorded popular vote, but Trump won the True Vote. It’s 2018 and the pundits still fail to recognize the historical fact that the recorded vote is never the same as the True Vote.  It’s past time for a great awakening.

Trump won the estimated True Vote by 50.5-43.4%, a 9.7 million vote margin. We estimate the True Vote based on the following simple models:

  • 1 Adjustments to the recorded vote: illegal votes , disenfranchised voters, voting machine flips 
  • 2 Race: Census breakdown and shares of white and non-white voters
  • 3 Returning 2012 voters and 2016 vote shares
  • 4 Party-ID: Gallup voter survey and vote shares
  • 5 When Decided: before and after Sept. 1

Given Model 1 adjustments to the recorded vote, we calculate an estimated True Vote. In models 2,3,4,5 we estimate vote shares required to match the True Vote.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1672204415 https://www.theepochtimes.com/voting-machines-in-16-states-tied-to-george-soros-ally_2176907.html http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

 Input Estimate Clinton Trump Other
Illegal 3.0 mil 85% 10% 5%
Disenfranchise 4.0 mil 85% 10% 5%
Machine Flip 7.0 mil 0% 90% 10%
1 Adjust Total Clinton Trump Other Margin
Recorded  136.22 65.72 62.89 7.61 2.83
48.25% 46.17% 5.59% 2.08%
Illegal -3.0 -2.55 -0.30 -0.15 -2.25
Disenfran 4.0 3.40 0.40 0.20 3.00
Vote Flip 0.0 -7.00 6.30 0.70 -13.30
Total Vote 137.22 59.57 69.29 8.36 9.72
 True Vote 43.41% 50.50% 6.09% 7.08%
2 Census Pct Clinton Trump Other
white (adj.) 73.30% 32.4% 61.14% 6.5%
Black 12.45% 84% 13% 3%
Latino 9.22% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 3.67% 65% 27% 8%
Other 1.36% 56% 36% 8%
True Vote 100.00% 43.41% 50.50% 6.09%
Recorded 100% 48.25% 46.17% 5.59%
3 Party-ID Gallup Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 31.0% 88.0% 10.0% 2.0%
Rep 28.0% 5.0% 92.0% 3.0%
Ind 41.0% 36.0% 53.0% 11.0%
True Vote 100.0% 43.44% 50.59% 5.97%
Votes 137.22 59.61 69.42 8.19
4 Returning 2012 voters Mix Clinton Trump Other
Obama 41.33% 85% 10% 5%
Romney 40.80% 5% 92% 3%
Other 1.54% 35% 40% 25%
DNV (new) 16.32% 35% 51% 14%
True Vote 100.0% 43.43% 50.61% 5.96%
Votes 137.22 59.59 69.45 8.18
5 When Decided Pct Clinton Trump Other
Before Sept 1 60.0% 48% 48% 4.0%
After Sept 1 40.0% 37% 54% 9.2%
True Vote   43.41% 50.50% 6.09%

Sensitivity Analysis

Trump
% Whites 59.0% 60.0% 61.0% 62.0% 63.0%
% Blacks Trump %
16% 49.28% 50.01% 50.75% 51.48% 52.21%
15% 49.15% 49.89% 50.62% 51.35% 52.09%
14% 49.03% 49.76% 50.50% 51.23% 51.96%
13% 48.91% 49.64% 50.37% 51.10% 51.84%
12% 48.78% 49.51% 50.25% 50.98% 51.71%
Clinton
16% 44.63% 43.90% 43.16% 42.43% 41.70%
15% 44.75% 44.02% 43.29% 42.56% 41.82%
14% 44.88% 44.15% 43.41% 42.68% 41.95%
13% 45.00% 44.27% 43.54% 42.80% 42.07%
12% 45.13% 44.39% 43.66% 42.93% 42.20%
Share Margin
16% 4.65% 6.12% 7.58% 9.05% 10.51%
15% 4.40% 5.87% 7.33% 8.80% 10.26%
14% 4.15% 5.62% 7.08% 8.55% 10.02%
13% 3.90% 5.37% 6.83% 8.30% 9.77%
12% 3.65% 5.12% 6.59% 8.05% 9.52%
Vote Margin
16% 6.38 8.39 10.40 12.41 14.43
15% 6.04 8.05 10.06 12.07 14.08
14% 5.70 7.71 9.72 11.73 13.74
13% 5.36 7.37 9.38 11.39 13.40
12% 5.01 7.03 9.04 11.05 13.06

My Books

Trump Won the True Vote

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

RECENT POSTS

2018 midterms

AZ Senate vs Governor a major discrepancy

17 House races: what-if?

Repub CA House races too close to call flipped to Dems

Did the GOP actually win the House?

2018 House probability analysis indicates fraud

GOP House: Red wave?

What is the probability Dems will win the House?

Arizona CBS Senate Poll More Anomalies

Generic vote forecast model vs RCP average (10-29)

Analysis of inflated Democratic generic polls indicates Republicans will win the House

GOP wins Texas-SD-19 for first time in-139-years

Florida Governor Polling Analysis

Trump has a higher approval rating than MSM polls

Rasmussen vs. WaPo: Trump approval

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on April 5, 2018 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

Mainstream Media and the Mathematics of Conspiracies

Mainstream Media and the Mathematics of Conspiracies

Richard Charnin
Dec. 31, 2017

Mainstream media pundits who called me a JFK / Seth Rich “Conspiracy Theorist”  avoided mathematical proofs in my blog posts, five books and the 84-page Moore complaint.  They also failed to mention that I was the only analyst in the universe to exactly forecast the electoral vote in each of the last three elections. Granted, a combination of skill and luck. My Blog  Posts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ib27G_vDNtQDNLDR8rXiU2LJLCn7Hspd4g5SKtQw1CM/edit#

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/2017-alabama-true-vote-75-turnout-of-of-clinton-voters-but-only-45-of-trump-voters/

https://www.scribd.com/document/367999441/Moore-Voter-Fraud-Complaint

The True Pundit: https://truepundit.com/roy-moore-takes-polygraph-files-complaint-election-fraud-dems-cheated-finally-proof/ The election experts, who submitted affidavits in the complaint, agree that the irregularities in 20 precincts of Jefferson County alone are enough to reverse the outcome of the election. Richard Charnin, who holds three degrees in applied mathematics, and who has written four books on election fraud, calculates the probability of the election results in these precincts happening naturally is “less than one in 15 billion.”

INFOWARS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpmJf58mDMQ

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/28/politics/roy-moore-analysis/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/28/politics/roy-moore-files-complaint/index.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAi_jcB0pks
Porter also defended the campaign against questions about one of the election experts that it cited in the court brief, Richard Charnin. Charnin has claimed there is a “less than one in 15 billion” chance that voter fraud played no role in the Alabama outcome. Bash questioned Charnin’s credentials, noting he has previously used mathematical analysis to claim that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a conspiracy.

The Hill: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/366689-moore-camp-warns-of-consequences-if-jones-is-certified-as-alabama-winner Moore and his campaign filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama, listing several allegations and called for “a new special election.” His complaint alleges that out-of-state residents had been allowed to vote and that election fraud experts had concluded through statistical analyses that fraud had taken place. One of the election experts Moore cites is Richard Charnin, who also posts about JFK conspiracy theories and the murder of DNC staffer, Seth Rich.

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/28/roy-moore-asks-alabama-court-for-a-new-election/?utm_term=.367f6ed15013   Richard Charnin, who provided the court with an argument that there was just enough possible fraud to swing the election, claimed to have “mathematically” proved a conspiracy behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In 2016, Charnin alleged that mass election fraud had stolen key Democratic primaries from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), to the benefit of eventual nominee Hillary Clinton.

NPR: https://www.npr.org/2017/12/28/574222257/fact-check-where-roy-moores-voter-fraud-claims-fall-flat  Richard Charnin, one of those so-called experts, is a well-known conspiracy theorist whose blog contains sections about the John F. Kennedy assassination and claims that Trump won the popular vote in the 2016 election — even though he in fact lost it by almost 3 million votes.

LAW AND CRIME: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/in-effort-to-delay-vote-certification-roy-moore-uses-election-expert-who-is-jfk-and-seth-rich-conspiracy-theorist/ Nearly three weeks have passed, and Moore has still refused to concede to Democrat Doug Jones who won the election by more than 20,000 votes. The Alabama Secretary of State is expected to certify the election results on Thursday (and says he plans to despite the complaint). The complaint, filed in Alabama state court, also called for a new election. However, probably most entertaining (troubling? frightening?), is that in the complaint, Moore’s attorneys attach several affidavits from so-called election experts including Richard Charnin, who calculated that the probability of the elections results in these precincts happening naturally is ‘less than one in 15 billion.”

RAW STORY: https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/roy-moores-voter-fraud-expert-is-a-notorious-crank-who-says-he-mathematically-proved-plot-to-kill-jfk/ Richard Charnin, the purported “expert” in voter fraud who has been cited by the Roy Moore campaign to claim that Democrat Doug Jones did not legitimately win this month’s Alabama Senate special election, is a notorious conspiracy theorist who has claimed that he has “mathematically proved” that there was a vast conspiracy to assassinate former President John F. Kennedy. As noted by CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins, Charnin in 2014 published a book called “Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy,” which was described as “a mathematical analysis of unnatural deaths, witness testimony, altered evidence and media disinformation” about Kennedy’s assassination in 1963. In essence, the book examines purportedly “unnatural” deaths of key people related to the supposed assassination plot — and concludes that it’s mathematically impossible for their deaths to be a coincidence. “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy is based on a statistical analysis of unnatural JFK-related deaths, Dealey Plaza eyewitness observations, medical, acoustic and photographic evidence,” reads the book’s description. “Warren Commission defenders and the Corporate Media avoid the evidence and continue to promote the bogus Single Bullet Theory and that Oswald was the lone shooter, despite overwhelming evidence that he was not on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository.” Collins says that Charnin has written extensively on his personal blog about both voter fraud conspiracies and has also calculated the probabilities that the DNC had former staffer Seth Rich murdered to cover up his ties to WikiLeaks.

The Telegraph-UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/28/roy-moore-launches-legal-challenge-against-alabama-election/” It cited “irregularities in 20 precincts” of the state’s Jefferson County which it said were “enough to reverse the outcome of the election,” quoting the views of conspiracy theorist Richard Charnin who claims the 2004 presidential election and 2016 Democratic primary were also rigged”.

NY Magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/roy-moore-files-lawsuit-alleging-voter-fraud-in-alabama-race.html One of the experts Moore cites is Richard Charnin, who says the probability that the election results are accurate is “less than one in 15 billion.” Charnin runs a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis,” and is known for pushing dubious voter-fraud claims, like that George W. Bush stole the 2004 election from John Kerry, Bernie Sanders is the rightful winner of the 2016 Democratic primary, and President Trump actually beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, not just the Electoral College.

Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/moore-election-lawsuit-alabama-fraud-761364Since the election, which marked the first time a Republican had lost a Senate election in Alabama in over two decades, Moore has refused to concede to Jones. The suit cites three “national election integrity experts” who state fraud occurred during December 12’s special election and includes Moore’s claim of passing a polygraph test to prove he did not commit any acts of sexual misconduct or molestation with teenage girls, according to AL.com. “This is not a Republican or Democrat issue as election integrity should matter to everyone,” Moore said according to AL.com. “We call on Secretary of State Merrill to delay certification until there is a thorough investigation of what three independent election experts agree took place: election fraud sufficient to overturn the outcome of the election.”

New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/roy-moore-block-election.htmlIt was not immediately clear when a judge would consider Mr. Moore’s complaint or the affidavits from several people his campaign described as experts in elections; To support his arguments, Mr. Moore included affidavits from several people his campaign described as experts in elections; one has claimed to have “mathematically proved a conspiracy to assassinate” President John F. Kennedy. (Mr. Moore has himself indulged in conspiracy theories, including that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.)

BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42501154Mr Moore’s lawsuit alleges that there were voting irregularities in 20 precincts and calls for a fraud investigation and a new election. One of the election experts cited in the suit is Richard Charnin, a conspiracy theorist who also claims there was widespread voter fraud against Donald Trump in the presidential election. Mr Moore’s lawyer said the purpose of the complaint was to “preserve evidence of potential election fraud and to postpone the certification of Alabama’s Special Election by Secretary of State John Merrill until a thorough investigation of potential election fraud, that improperly altered the outcome of this election”.

NBC: https://www-nbcnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/amp/roy-moore-alleges-voter-fraud-files-challenge-election-defeat-n833041?amp_js_v=0.1 The statement gives few details of the purported irregularities, which it says were substantiated “with a reasonable degree of statistical and mathematical certainty” by three election experts.The statement identifies only one of the experts, Richard Charnin, whom it quotes as saying the probability that the official election results were accurate was “less than one in 15 billion.” Charnin, who says he has three degrees in applied mathematics, is a prominent figure among believers that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was the result of a conspiracy. He has also argued that the Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election and that Hillary Clinton stole the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

The Hill: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/366689-moore-camp-warns-of-consequences-if-jones-is-certified-as-alabama-winner Porter also defended the campaign against questions about one of the election experts that it cited in the court brief, Richard Charnin. Charnin has claimed there is a “less than one in 15 billion” chance that voter fraud played no role in the Alabama outcome. Bash questioned Charnin’s credentials, noting he has previously used mathematical analysis to claim that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a conspiracy.

NY DAILY NEWS: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/picture-democracy-ballot-images-article-1.3724556 Roy Moore tried and failed to challenge the outcome of the U.S. Senate special election where he was bested by Democrat Doug Jones. We are grateful that Alabamians rejected Republican Moore, with his bigoted views and documented history of attempts to seduce teen girls, won’t be in the Senate. But count us disappointed that Moore’s ex-colleagues on the Alabama Supreme Court denied him fair opportunity to prove his cockamamie claim that rampant voter fraud denied him so many votes that he should have beaten Jones instead of losing by around 22,000 votes.

THE ATLANTIC: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/roy-moores-last-gasp/549332/Most of the lawsuit focused on what Moore’s attorneys described as electoral anomalies that raise questions about the 22,000-vote margin. They include “expert testimony” from a Florida-based elections analyst named Richard Charnin who wrote in an accompanying letter that there was “overwhelming statistical proof of fraud in Jefferson County.” (Charnin is perhaps best known, to the extent that he is, as a positor of conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and, more recently, the 2016 murder of Seth Rich, a staffer with the Democratic National Committee.) Moore alleges that in Republican precincts in the county, there was an unexplained drop-off in votes by people who checked off a straight party-line vote for the GOP but did not vote for Moore.

THE GUARDIAN: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/28/alabama-election-roy-moore-files-lawsuit-to-stop-doug-jones-certification The filing cited “experts” including Richard Charnin, who has a blog dedicated to John F Kennedy conspiracy theories and has also floated conspiracies over the 2016 death of Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer. Another cited authority, James Condit Jr, has espoused antisemitic views and promoted conspiracies about a supposed Jewish takeover of the Vatican.

DAILY DOT: https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/roy-moore-election-challenge/  Richard Charnin, who prognosticates elections online, said he saw enough evidence to say that the election could have been swung illegally for Doug Jones. Charnin’s previous claim to fame is that he thinks it’s mathematically proven that John F. Kennedy’s assassination was a conspiracy. “I mathematically proved a conspiracy to assassinate JFK – and cover it up,” Charnin says on his website. “JFK Calc is a spreadsheet database of suspicious and unnatural witness deaths and other statistical anomalies. Many witnesses who were called to testify in four investigations died unnaturally. The probability is one in trillions – absolute mathematical proof of a conspiracy.

LAGNIAPPEMOBILE https://lagniappemobile.com/roy-moore-files-lawsuit-stop-election-certification/ All three experts submitted affidavits to the court along with Moore’s complaint, though only one was identified by the Moore campaign in its statement announcing the legal challenge. Richard Charnin is quoted as saying the probability of the election results in certain precincts in Jefferson County happening naturally is “less than one in 15 billion.” Charnin is no stranger to post-election controversy, though. He has a history of making similar claims after races won by both parties like the 2004 presidential election of George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton’s victory in the 2016 Democratic primary. According to the New York Times, Charnin has also claims to have “mathematically proved a conspiracy to assassinate” President John F. Kennedy.

 

NY DAILY NEWS: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-denies-roy-moore-attempt-delay-alabama-senate-results-article-1.3723608 One “expert” named by Moore was Richard Charnin, who has claimed to have “mathematically proved a conspiracy to assassinate” President John F. Kennedy. A website run Charnin specializes in writings about election fraud and notes about JFK conspiracies. In a blog post from earlier this month, Charnin cites the “the FACT that the recorded vote is ALWAYS fraudulent” and claims that President Trump won the 2016 popular vote, which he lost by nearly 3 million. While Charnin calling the Alabama victory of Jones fraudulent is therefore not surprising, Moore’s camp said that a thorough investigation should be launched based on his expertise.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on December 31, 2017 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Trump Won the True Vote

Richard Charnin
Dec. 5, 2017

Look inside the book: Trump Won the True Vote

Mainstream media pundits claim that Clinton won the primary and presidential election by three million votes. It’s a myth. They fail to consider the FACT that the recorded vote is ALWAYS fraudulent.

A True Vote Model analysis indicates Trump won the popular as well as the electoral vote. The pundits always assume that the recorded vote is accurate but never consider the fraud factor. The historical statistical evidence is conclusive: every election is fraudulent.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on December 5, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: ,

So I’m a “left-wing Internet crank” who has been “weaponized” for Trump by Roger Stone?

Richard Charnin
Sept. 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
LINKS TO  POSTS

So I’m a “left-wing Internet crank” who has been “weaponized” for Trump by Roger Stone?

On August 3, 2016, Felix Salmon wrote: “Stone and Trump base most of their argument, such that it is, on one man. Stone refers to him as “a mathematician called Richard Charnin.”

https://splinternews.com/how-the-donald-trump-campaign-is-weaponizing-a-left-win-1793860798

Hey Felix, my political views are irrelevant. But I do have a lifetime membership in the Truth Party. I crunch numbers.

Salmon goes on:
“For years now, Charnin has been best known as the go-to guy for anybody who wants evidence that voter fraud is deciding elections. He’s beloved in the corner of the internet which believes that Hillary Clinton stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, or, for that matter, that George W Bush stole the 2004 election from John Kerry. When he’s not concentrating on who-killed-JFK conspiracy theories, he can generally be relied upon to say that the more left-wing candidate got more votes than the winner in major elections.

That makes Charnin a very strange bedfellow for the Trump campaign, just in terms of his political leanings. But even stranger is the idea that Trump would want his supporters to pick up Charnin’s voter fraud ball and run it all the way into the zone of democratic illegitimacy”.

I plead guilty as charged. But I am not a conspiracy theorist. I use math analysis based on published facts to prove that…
1) JFK was assassinated in a massive Coup by the Deep State:
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Science-Cons…/…/ref=sr_1_1…

2) Hillary stole the 2016 nomination:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/77-billion-to-one-2…/) and

3) Kerry beat Bush easily in 2004:  http://www.richardcharnin.com/FurtherConfirmationOfaKerryLandslide.htm

My next book is on the 2016 election. As usual, expect the mathematical analysis you won’t ever get in the MSM.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 22, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

2016 Election: illegal voters, uncounted votes, machine vote flipping

Richard Charnin
Updated Sept. 19, 2017

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

Clinton won the recorded vote by 2.8 million. But the recorded vote is never equal to the True Vote due to election fraud.

There is evidence that millions of illegals probably voted in 2016. View this 1988-2016 trend analysis of Hispanic voter registration and turnout.

According to Greg Palast, least one million Democratic minority voters were disenfranchised via Crosscheckwhich eliminated voters with duplicate names from voter rolls. He claims that 7 million minority voters were disenfranchised.

There is evidence that  George Soros , a Clinton backer,  controls voting machines in 16 states.  Election analyst Bev Harris has posted Fraction Magic , an algorithm used to flip votes on Central tabulators.

Sensitivity analysis shows the effects of a range of assumptions on the vote count.

Let TV = True Vote; RV = Recorded vote
RV = TV + Fraud

Given the Recorded vote in millions:
Clinton 65.7, Trump 62.9, Other 7.6

Election fraud components:
-Vote flipping on maliciously coded, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators
-Illegal voters (non-citizens)
-Uncounted votes (spoiled ballots, disenfranchised voters)

Base Case Assumptions
Uncounted- 7 million: 85% for Clinton
Vote Flip- 5 million (net): 8% of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. 
Illegals- 2 million: 85% for Clinton
Trump wins by 3.7 million: 68.7-64.9 (48.6-46.0%)

Assume 12 million uncounted: 85% to Clinton 
(2 million illegal, 5 million flip)
Trump still wins: 69.4-69.2 million (47.48-47.32%)

………..Total………Clinton….Trump……Other
Vote…..136.2……..65.7………62.9………7.6
Pct……,,100%..,….48.3%…..46.2%……5.6%

Illegal… 2.0…….  -1.70…..  -0.30…………0 non-citizens
Unctd…..7.0………5.95……..1.05…………0 disenfranchised 
Flip……..5.0…….  -5.0……….5.0………….0 voting machine

Net……141.2……64.9…….68.7………7.6
Adjusted………..46.0%….48.6%……5.4%

Sensitivity Analysis (assume 7 million uncounted, 85% for Clinton)
Worst case (7% flip, 80% of illegals to Clinton):  Trump wins by 2.3 million
Base case: (8%  flip, 85% of illegals to Clinton): Trump wins by 3.7 million
Best case: (9% flip, 90% of illegals to Clinton): Trump wins by 5.2 million

View the spreadsheet:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1672204415

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/01/19/millennials-make-up-almost-half-of-latino-eligible-voters-in-2016/ph_election-2016_chap1-chart-08/

Total Clinton Trump Other
Recorded vote 136.2 million 65.7 62.9 7.6
48.25% 46.17% 5.59%
Illegal 2.0 -1.7 -0.3 0
Uncounted 7.0 5.95 1.05 0
Vote Flip 5.0 -5.0 5.0 0
Adjusted 141.22 64.9 68.7 7.6
  46.0% 48.6% 5.4%
7.0 million uncounted 85% to Clinton
Illegals to 
Clinton
 
  80% 85% 90%
Flip to Clinton   Trump Vote
9% 69.20 69.30 69.40
8% 68.57 68.67 68.77
7% 67.94 68.04 68.14
Vote Flip   Trump Vote
9% 49.00% 49.07% 49.14%
8% 48.56% 48.63% 48.70%
7% 48.11% 48.18% 48.25%
Vote Flip   Clinton vote
9% 45.61% 45.54% 45.47%
8% 46.06% 45.98% 45.91%
7% 46.50% 46.43% 46.36%
Vote Flip   Trump margin
9% 4.79 4.99 5.19
8% 3.53 3.73 3.93
7% 2.27 2.47 2.67
 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 20, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2016 Pre-election Polls in 16 Battleground states were biased for Clinton

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

In 16 battleground states, Trump won the recorded vote by 48.0-45.9%, a 2.1% margin. Clinton led the pre-election polls by 44.5-44.1%, a 0.4% margin.

When undecided voters are allocated (UVA), Trump leads the 16-poll average 46.6-45.3%. Using the Gallup National Voter affiliation survey (40Ind-32Dem-28Rep) to derive each state’s Party-ID, Trump leads 48.9-43.1%.

Clinton won the 16 unadjusted exit polls 47.4-45.6%, a 1.8% margin.

There was a 2.5% average margin discrepancy between the pre-election 16-poll average and the corresponding recorded vote average. The 4.6% difference between the 2.5% discrepancy and the 2.1% national recorded margin is an indicator that the pre-election polls were biased for the Democrats.

In 10 final National pre-election polls, Clinton led 46.8-43.6%, a 3.2% margin. She won the National recorded vote by 48.3-46.2%, a 2.1% margin.

Summary of 16 Battleground states:
Unweighted averages:
Clinton won the pre-election polls by 44.5-44.1%.
Clinton won the unadjusted exit polls by 47.4-45.6%
Trump won the recorded vote by 48.0-45.9%.
Trump won the UVA-adjusted polls by 46.6-45.3%.
Trump won the Gallup Party-ID adjusted polls by 48.9-43.1%.

Weighted averages (56.8 million votes):
Clinton won the pre-election polls by 45.0-44.7%.
Clinton won the unadjusted exit polls by 47.5-46.1%
Trump won the recorded vote by 48.4-46.1%.
Trump won the UVA-adjusted polls by 47.0-45.7%.
Trump won the Gallup Party-ID adjusted polls by 48.5-43.9%.

Battleground Exit poll discrepancies:
Recorded vote:3.9%; UVA:3.1%; Pre-election polls:1.4%; Gallup:7.6%
UVA: Undecided Voter Allocation: Trump won the recorded vote by 48.0-45.9%.

Trump likely won the national vote by 48-44% (5 million votes).

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/2016-true-vote-models-in-confirmation-party-id-and-returning-2012-voters/

Real Clear Politics (RCP)is the data source for the pre-election polls:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/state/

View the data and calculations for the 16 state polls, recorded votes, unadjusted exit polls and undecided voters: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dlTnin814phKJWjYdkG-ujNKak3zo6ywIP0u0-TGFg/edit#gid=1579502018

 Trump Pre-elect UVA Recorded Exit polls
True Vote
AZ 46.3 48.3 48.1 46.9 50.7
CO 40.4 44.3 43.3 41.5 48.9
FL 46.6 48.1 48.6 46.4 48.0
GA 49.2 50.0 50.5 48.2 52.6
IA 44.3 47.6 51.2 48.0 52.1
ME 39.5 44.5 44.9 40.2 48.6
MI 42.0 45.4 47.3 46.8 47.1
MN 39.0 40.8 44.9 45.8 46.5
MO 50.3 52.0 56.4 51.2 51.4
NV 45.8 47.2 45.5 42.8 47.1
NH 42.7 45.9 46.5 44.2 51.1
NC 46.5 49.2 49.9 46.5 46.3
OH 45.8 48.3 51.3 47.1 50.1
PA 44.3 47.2 48.2 46.1 45.6
VA 42.3 44.6 44.4 43.2 48.4
WI 40.3 42.9 47.2 44.3 47.4
AVERAGE 44.1 46.6 48.0 45.6 48.9

No automatic alt text available.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 15, 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 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

 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 28, 2017 in 2016 election, True Vote Models

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,