RSS

Tag Archives: richard charnin

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.

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). The state party-ID weights were adjusted to Gallup party-affiliation survey weights. Gallup is the only poll dedicated to tracking national  party affiliation.

Election Model forecast:
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.

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

Undecided Voter Allocation Sensitivity Analysis

UVA  Trump Clinton  ExpEV  PopVote WinProb
50%….47.1….45.6…….310….. 75%
60%….47.6….45.1…….332….. 86%
75%….48.5….44.3……. 351….. 96%

The estimated popular vote win probability and corresponding 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 Gallup 2016 survey. The state votes  are calculated by applying the candidate 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).

The Sensitivity Analysis tables show the effect of incremental vote shares on the total vote.

The 2008 and 2012 election models exactly forecast the electoral votes (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 Obama: 51.5% recorded and 55% True vote (380 EV}. But the pollsters failed to exit poll in 19 states, so I could not confirm the results. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 9-POLL  AVG
 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 PartyID         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 Adjusted

40I-32D-28R   ElectVote   Trump UVA
Adjusted Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Win Prob Win Prob
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 EVote before UVA   232 306   96.1%
True EVote after UVA 187 351   
 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: , , , , , , , , ,

From Nina Illingworth: “Wicked Game: the Clandestine Murder of Democracy in America”

Richard Charnin
Aug. 10, 2016

Richard Charnin

This post links to Nina Illingworth’s  terrific series on Election Fraud.  Although Nina did not  contact me, she researched my analysis extensively and accurately explained the essential focus along with providing much additional information. I cannot recommend this fantastic series more highly.

INTRODUCTION

Wicked Game: the Clandestine Murder of Democracy in America

 “History is a set of lies agreed on” – Bernard Le Bouyer de Fontenelle

If we’re being completely honest with each other, I’m not really sure when the true, horrifying nature of what I’d discovered really started to sink into my conscious mind – frankly, there’s a part of me that’s still deeply in shock about all of this and I don’t mind sharing that fact with you folks right from the outset. It’s not every day that you find yourself assembling overwhelming evidence that the Democratic Party Presidential nomination process is almost certainly fixed in favor of the establishment candidate, after all.

Rarer still I imagine, are days in which you accidentally stumble across the work of a qualified mathematician that seems to objectively prove every single fucking Presidential Election in America since at least 1988 is a goddamn sham – while simultaneously calling into question thousands of elections across all levels of government over that same time period. Worse yet, this realization in and of itself casts shadows of doubt over the last twenty-five years of history in the Western World; can any decision influenced in any way by the US government over that time truly be said to be “the will of the people” if you know without a doubt that there’s no such thing as a fair election anymore?

PART 1 – The 2016 Democratic Primary

This portion of our series focuses on exit polls, Richard Charnin and the overwhelming evidence currently available all over the internet that the 2016 Democratic Primary has been fixed for Hillary Clinton and against democratic socialist candidate Bernie Sanders. Please be reminded that while it is not necessary to follow the links in this article to understand what I’ve written, your comprehension of the piece will be greatly improved by doing so – particularly when discussing Charnin’s data.

PART 2- Hoosier Mommy
This installment of Wicked Game returns to the Democratic Primary, looks at the historical evidence of widespread election fraud in American politics since at least 1988 and cleans up some debunking attempts I forgot to discuss last time. Please be reminded that while it is not necessary to follow the links in this article to understand what I’ve written, your comprehension of the piece will be greatly improved by doing so – particularly when discussing data analyzed by Richard Charnin.

PART 3: Desert Scam
This installment of Wicked Game finds us wandering the barren, desert wasteland of Nevada to further examine the absolutely goddamn shameful behavior of Barbara Lange, Barbara Boxer and the entire state Democratic Convention Committee – everything is 1968 again as we hurtle towards a DNC in Philly that, with each passing day is starting to look more and more like a struggle for the very survival of democracy in our time. As always, please be reminded that while it is not necessary to follow the links in this article to understand what I’ve written, your comprehension of the work will be greatly improved by doing so.

 
7 Comments

Posted by on August 10, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

2016 Democratic Primaries: Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

2016 Democratic Primaries:  Sanders did much better in states with Paper Ballots

Richard Charnin
June 15, 2016

Richard Charnin

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
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
Recommended reading: election fraud-Nina Illingworth

This  is an excellent analysis of the Democratic primaries from Axel Geijsel of  Tilburg University -(The Netherlands) and  Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of  Stanford University  (U.S.A.) .

The authors compare exit poll and recorded results in two groups of states : 10 with paper trails and 14 without paper. They reference my exit poll spreadsheet and CVS graphs as well as the NY Times for the recorded vote data.

I added the following  calculations to the Democratic Primaries spreadsheet  referencing the Geijsel/Barrigan spreadsheet. Sanders did nearly 15% better in the 14 states with a paper trail  than the non-paper ballot states. He won the unadjusted exit polls in the 14 states by 5.2%, but lost the reported vote by 2.7%.

10 States No Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-10 65.36% 33.30% 32.06%
2-party Reported 66.25% 33.75% 32.49%
2-party Unadjusted 62.54% 37.46% 25.08%
2-party Discrepancy 3.71% -3.71% 7.41%
14 States Paper trail Clinton Sanders Margin
Reported Average-14 50.38% 47.75% 2.63%
2-party Reported 51.34% 48.66% 2.68%
2-party Unadjusted 47.40% 52.60% -5.20%
2-party Discrepancy 3.94% -3.94% 7.88%
Paper vs. No Paper (EP) -14.91% 14.91%

Steven D  of caucus99percent.com: posted this note: This is a very long post, and contains the response of the authors of the study,“Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America,” to critics who posted highly negative and derogatory comments to my initial blog post on this matter at Booman Tribune. Unless you are a stat geek, feel free to stop reading when you reach the section marked Attachment.  

The authors  responded to critics of the analysis:

Dear Steven,
In regards to your earlier email. The criticism that you forwarded to us can be divided in two parts. The first is that we should add additional data in our appendix (most of which we have available), the second is that we shouldn’t have used the exit poll data. The former we have no qualms with and will be more than happy to include, the latter is based on faulty information, and considering the vigor with which they mention it. We could not help but feel it was drivel. Especially given the fact that they linked to a website which was authored by someone who doesn’t know absolute basics of statistics.

Some of the sources coming from media-outlets, from which most of the writers in question knowing very little about statistics (certain articles kind of shocked me). An interesting one of the mentioned sources being from Nate Silver (fivethirtyeight), where he wrote a 10-part critique about exit polling: For which he did not go unscrutinized: .

He has received earlier criticism as well from different analysts. [; . And from anecdotal reference, he has been criticized many times more before too.

In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there’s a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they’re accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play.

Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it’s the latter. Though that’s our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place.

Corroborating studies and links being: (also a criticism on some of the above mentioned);; ; ; ; ;

I hope to have provided you with enough ammunition to feel somewhat at ease.

Kind regards,

Axel Geijsel

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.

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 

 
7 Comments

Posted by on June 15, 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: , , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis