Sensitivity of 2016 Electoral and Popular Vote to Registered Voter Turnout

Sensitivity of 2016 Electoral and Popular Vote to Registered Voter Turnout

Richard Charnin
Oct.4, 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

Eight voter turnout scenarios:
Trump wins the base case (86% Dem, 91% Rep) by 328-210 EV and 1.15 million votes.

Trump needs 89% Dem and 88% Rep turnout to match his 306 EV.
Clinton needs an implausible 92% Dem, 85% Rep turnout to tie Trump at 269 EV.
Clinton needs 93% Dem, 87% Rep turnout to win by 298-240 EV and 3.12 million.
Clinton needs 92.5% Dem, 84.5% Rep turnout to match her 2.8 million margin.

Trump vote margins are conservative since the calculations are based on state exit poll vote shares forced to match the recorded vote.

Sensitivity analysis (assume constant 87% Independent voter turnout)

Turnout Trump Votes (000) Vote Shares
Dem Rep EV Trump Clinton Margin Trump Clinton
0.85 0.92 332 64,647 62,885 1,762 47.5 46.2
0.86 0.91 328 64,347 63,195 1,152 47.2 46.4
0.87 0.90 321 64,047 63,505 542 47.0 46.6
0.88 0.89 315 63,747 63,815 -68 46.8 46.9
0.89 0.88 305 63,447 64,125 -678 46.6 47.1
0.90 0.87 289 63,147 64,435 -1,288 46.4 47.3
0.91 0.86 289 62,847 64,745 -1,899 46.1 47.5
0.92 0.85 269 62,546 65,055 -2,509 45.9 47.8
0.93 0.84 240 62,246 65,365 -3,119 45.7 48.0
0.94 0.83 240 61,946 65,675 -3,729 45.5 48.2

Given these facts:
– Census 2016 registered voter turnout of 87%.
– Gallup national voter affiliation (Party-ID) on Election Day:
(41% Independents, 31% Democrats and 28% Republicans)
– 28 exit poll states: vote shares forced to match recorded vote.
– 23 non-exit poll states recorded vote shares .

Assumptions: Bernie Sanders defectors…
– 5% of registered Democrats stayed home
– 4% voted for Jill Stein and 1% for Trump.
Then….
1. Adjusted Voter Turnout: 78.6% Dem, 91.6% Rep, 91.6% Ind
2. Adjusted Gallup Party-ID: 29.5% Dem, 29.1% Rep, 41.4% Ind
3. Gallup Party-ID calculated for each of the 28 exit polled states
4. Trump wins by 48.13-45.33% (3.81 million votes) with 332-206 EV

Since the 28 state exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote and likely inflated for Clinton (as were the 23 states not polled), Trump probably did better than indicated. 

…………..Clinton Trump
28 states 45.67% 47.67% Exit polls (Gallup/NEP-adjusted)
Votes…… 50,664 52,776

23 states 43.71% 50.40% Not exit polled. Assume recorded vote.
Votes…… 11,079 12,777

51 states 45.33% 48.13% (conservative- Trump may have done better)
Votes…… 61,744 65,554

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=857963642

 

2016 True Vote Analysis: Voter Turnout

2016 True Vote Analysis: Voter Turnout

Richard Charnin
Sept.24, 2017

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

According to the 2016 Census, 87.3% (137.5 million) of 157.6 million registered voters cast ballots, the same turnout as in the 1996-2016 elections. There were 136.2 million votes recorded – a 1% difference. In 1996-2016, there was a 3% difference between votes cast and recorded.

According to the Gallup Voter Preference Survey, on Election Day, 39.8% were Independents, 31.9% Democrats and 28.3% Republicans.

Assume registered voter turnout of
– 87% Independents
Trump won Independents by 8%. Pre-election polls indicate he won by 10%.

– 85% Democrats
(6% stayed home – or 12% of Sanders voters).
Clinton had 88% of Dems – but that assumes Jill Stein had just 2%.
Jill probably had more.

– 91% Republicans
Trump had 89%. Johnson took away votes.

Result: Trump wins by 47.6-45.2% (3.4 million votes)
Stein has 2.9% (4 million) compared to her 1.07% recorded vote (1.45 million).
So the following is CONSERVATIVE. Trump probably did better.

Party Turnout Voted….Clinton….Trump… Johnson… Stein….Other
Ind… 87%…….34.4%…….40%…….48%…….4.0%….5.0%…3.0%
Dem… 85%……27.1%…….88%……..8%…….1.0%….2.0%…1.0%
Rep… 91%…….25.7%……..7%…….89%…….3.0%….1.0%…0.0%

Vote..87.3%…….. 100%……45.2%…..47.6%……2.8%….2.9%…1.5%
Votes………………137.5……62.15…..65.51……3.81…..3.97…2.05
Recorded
Share………….. 136.22…..48.25%….46.17%…..3.29%…1.07%..1.23%
Votes…………….. 136.22…..65.72…..62.89……4.48……1.45…1.67

Sensitivity Analysis
(Trump wins all 25 turnout scenarios- see spreadsheet tables)
Trump Vote Margin
Best case: 4.9 million (48.2-44.7%)
Base case: 3.35 million (47.6-45.2%)
Worst case: 1.8 million (47.1-45.8%)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=610568510

 

 

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

 

2016 Voter Turnout and Vote share Sensitivity Analysis: Trump won the Popular Vote

Richard Charnin
Mar. 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 Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

Trump wins all 25 scenarios over various combinations of voter turnout

Assumption
Party ID (registration) 38I-31D-27R
(Gallup voter affiliation survey average Nov.1-13,  2016)

1. Base Case Voter Turnout: Dem 65%, Rep 70%, Ind 70%
Trump 48.3-45.2% (4.2 million vote margin)

2. Worst Case Turnout: Dem 67%, Rep 68%, Ind 70%
Trump 47.6-45.9% (2.3 million vote margin)

3. Best Case Turnout: Dem 63%, Rep 72%, Ind 70%
Trump 49.1-44.5% (6.2 million vote margin)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=610568510

Reg Voter	Gallup	Base Case
Turnout	Voter Affil	Clinton	Trump	Johnson	Stein
70% Ind	38%	40%	50%	5%	5%
65% Dem	31%	88%	8%	1%	3%
70% Rep	27%	7%	89%	3%	1%
Vote share	100.0%	45.2%	48.3%	3.2%	3.2%
Votes	136.2	61.6	65.8	4.4	4.4
		Trump %
Dem		Rep Turnout
Turnout	68%	69%	70%	71%	72%
63%	48.3%	48.5%	48.7%	48.9%	49.1%
64%	48.2%	48.3%	48.5%	48.7%	48.9%
65%	48.0%	48.2%	48.3%	48.5%	48.7%
66%	47.8%	48.0%	48.2%	48.3%	48.5%
67%	47.6%	47.8%	48.0%	48.2%	48.3%
		Trump Vote
Dem		Rep Turnout
Turnout	68%	69%	70%	71%	72%
63%	65.9	66.1	66.3	66.6	66.8
64%	65.6	65.8	66.1	66.3	66.6
65%	65.4	65.6	65.8	66.1	66.3
66%	65.1	65.3	65.6	65.8	66.1
67%	64.9	65.1	65.3	65.6	65.8
		Clinton %
Dem		Rep Turnout
Turnout	68%	69%	70%	71%	72%
63%	45.2%	45.0%	44.9%	44.7%	44.5%
64%	45.4%	45.2%	45.1%	44.9%	44.7%
65%	45.6%	45.4%	45.2%	45.1%	44.9%
66%	45.8%	45.6%	45.4%	45.2%	45.1%
67%	45.9%	45.8%	45.6%	45.4%	45.2%
		Trump %	Margin
Dem		Rep Turnout
Turnout	68%	69%	70%	71%	72%
63%	3.1%	3.5%	3.8%	4.2%	4.5%
64%	2.8%	3.1%	3.5%	3.8%	4.2%
65%	2.4%	2.8%	3.1%	3.5%	3.8%
66%	2.0%	2.4%	2.7%	3.1%	3.4%
67%	1.7%	2.0%	2.4%	2.7%	3.1%
		Trump  Vote	Margin
Dem		Rep Turnout
Turnout	68%	69%	70%	71%	72%
63%	4.3	4.7	5.2	5.7	6.2
64%	3.8	4.2	4.7	5.2	5.7
65%	3.3	3.7	4.2	4.7	5.2
66%	2.8	3.3	3.7	4.2	4.7
67%	2.3	2.8	3.2	3.7	4.2

 

2016 True Vote Sensitivity analysis: 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 Crosscheck which 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%)

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	136.22	65.72	62.89	7.61
		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 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

 

Sensitivity Analysis: Ohio Unadjusted Exit Poll Anomalies

Richard Charnin
Jan. 11, 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

Sensitivity Analysis shows that the Ohio unadjusted exit poll which indicated a virtual 47% tie was implausible. Clinton had to win a solid majority of Independents given her recorded shares of Democrats and Republicans.

Trump won Ohio by 51.7-43.6%. But the unadjusted poll indicates that he won by just 47.1-47.0%. Assuming the unadjusted poll is accurate, the 8% discrepancy indicates a virtual 100% probability of election fraud favoring Trump. But let’s take a closer look.

The final Ohio exit poll (which is always matched to the recorded vote) indicated that Trump won Independents by 51-38%. To match the unadjusted poll, Clinton needed to win Independents by 50-35%, an extremely implausible discrepancy.

Trump led Independents in nine national pre-election polls by 43.6-33.8%. He also led Independents in the National Exit Poll by 46-42%.

A sensitivity analysis of Trump’s and Clinton’s Ohio vote share revealed that Trump had nearly 50% using conservative assumptions below the base case recorded vote.

The Ohio final exit poll indicated that Trump won 89% of Republicans, 12% of Democrats and 51% of Independents which resulted in his 51.7-43.6% win.

I calculated Trump’s total vote share for three cases assuming he had 7-12% of Democratic shares and 87-89% of Republican shares.

The exit poll party-ID is used in cases 1-2. The Gallup-adjusted Party ID was used in case 3.

1.Unadjusted Exit poll (Clinton won Independents by 50-35%)
2.Recorded Vote (assume Trump won Independents by 51-38%)
3.True Vote (assume Trump won Independents by 51-38%)

In cases 4-6, Trump’s total share was calculated over a range of his shares of Independents and Republicans.

A sensitivity analysis of the Ohio RACE exit poll demographic confirmed that Trump had at least 50%.

Conclusion: It is a mistake to ASSUME that the unadjusted 2016 exit polls were accurate, even though I proved that they were close to the True Vote in 1988-2008. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1904912692

		Reported Vote
OHIO	Pct	Clinton	Trump	Johnson	Stein
Dem	34%	87%	12%	0%	1%
Rep	37%	8%	89%	2%	1%
Ind	29%	38%	51%	8%	3%
Calc	100%	43.6%	51.8%	3.1%	1.6%
Reported	100%	43.6%	51.7%	3.2%	1.6%
Votes	5,496	2,394	2,841	174	46
		Margin	447	8.1%
			Trump % Dem
	% Rep	7%	9%	12%
	89%	50.1%	50.8%	51.8%
	88%	49.7%	50.4%	51.4%
	87%	49.4%	50.0%	51.1%
			Trump % Ind
	% Rep	35%	45%	51%
	89%	47.2%	50.1%	51.8%
	88%	46.8%	49.7%	51.4%
	87%	46.4%	49.3%	51.1%

 

Exit Poll Party-ID: Sanders vs. Clinton

Richard Charnin
July 17,  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

The model  calculates Sanders vs. Clinton True Vote vote shares based on the latest  Party-ID preference polls of Independent and Democratic voters.  Note that in just two years, Independents  have increased from 24.2% to  43% of the electorate.  They represent 57.3% of the 2-party preference mix. 

2014				2016
Dem	Ind	Ind/ (Ind+  Dem)		Dem	Ind	Ind/ (Ind+ Dem)
40.5%	24.2%	37.4%		32%	43%	57.3%

Election fraud cost Sanders the primaries.  

Independents voted heavily for Sanders. The impossible/implausible Sanders and Clinton shares of Democrats that were required to match the recorded vote proves that the recorded vote was also impossible/implausible.

Given:
25 adjusted primary exit polls and 2 entrance polls (IA and NV) and
1- Independent and Democratic Party-ID mix
2- Recorded Primary vote shares
3- Sanders’ share of Independents (adjusted state primary exit poll)

Gallup Party preference trend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Calculate:
Sanders’ share of Democrats required to match the primary recorded vote

Results:
The required share is impossible (-16% < 1%) in 7 primares:
AL CT SC MS AR FL IA

The required share is implausible (2 < 18%) in 11 primaries:
 TN GA TX NV VA NY MA NC MD OH PA

The required share is plausible (> 25%) in 9 primaries:
IN NH MI IL WV MO OK WI  VT

Example: In Massachusetts, Sanders had 66.7% of Independents. He had to have an implausibly low 9.1% of Democrats to match his 49.3% share. If he had 25%, he would have won the primary with 54%.

MA……… Pct Sanders Clinton
IND……. 69.8% 66.7% 33.3%
Dem……. 30.2%  9.1% 90.9%
Total….. 100%  49.3% 50.7%
Recorded…….. 49.3% 50.7%

———————————————–

Simple California Vote share Model

There was no exit poll, so let’s assume the following.
a) Party-ID: 57% Independents vs. 43% Democrats
(estimated based on 2014-2016 surveys)
b) Sanders won 70% of Independents

Result:
Clinton needed an implausible 85% of Democrats to match her 53.5% share.

Party-ID….PCT…… Sanders….Clinton
IND……… 57.0%….. 70.0%….. 30.0%
DEM…….. 43.0%…….15.3%….. 84.7%
Total…….100.0%….. 46.5%….. 53.5%
Recorded……………. 46.5%….. 53.5%

CA Sensitivity Analysis

What if: Clinton had 65% of Democrats?
Sanders would have won by 55-45%.

Assume Independents 57% vs. 43% Democrats
………………………..Sanders% IND
Sanders…….. 55% 60% 70% 75% 80%
% DEM……… Sanders Vote share
45%………….. 51% 54% 59% 62% 65%
40%………….. 49% 51% 57% 60% 63%
35%………….. 46% 49% 55% 58% 61%
30%………….. 44% 47% 53% 56% 59%
25%………….. 42% 45% 51% 54% 56%

……………………………………………………………………………..

Sensitivity Analysis I and II
1-Independents comprise 55% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
2-Sanders has 45% of Democrats and 65% of Independents.
Base Case: Sanders wins by 56-44%

Sensitivity Analysis I
1-Sanders has 45% of Democrats (held constant).
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Independents range from 45-65% of the IND/DEM Party-ID mix.
Result: Sanders wins 24 of 25 Scenarios.

Sensitivity Analysis II
1-Sanders has 35-55% of Democrats.
2-Sanders has 55-75% of Independents.
3-Party-ID: Independents 55%; Democrats 45% (held constant).
Result: Sanders wins 22 of 25 Scenarios..

Sensitivity I
Sanders% DEM	45%		IND
	45%	50%	55%	60%	65%
Sanders% IND		Sanders Vote share
75%	59%	60%	62%	63%	65%
70%	56%	58%	59%	60%	61%
65%	54%	55%	56%	57%	58%
60%	52%	53%	53%	54%	55%
55%	50%	50%	51%	51%	52%
Sensitivity II
Independents	55%		Sanders% IND
	55%	60%	65%	70%	75%
Sanders% DEM		Sanders Vote share
55%	55%	58%	61%	63%	66%
50%	53%	56%	58%	61%	64%
45%	51%	53%	56%	59%	62%
40%	48%	51%	54%	57%	59%
35%	46%	49%	52%	54%	57%

View the spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

 

 

 

 

NY Democratic Primary: Your forecast

NY Democratic Primary: Your forecast

Richard Charnin
April 18, 2016

You can listen to the pundits who told you that Hillary is leading by 17%, implying that it is all over and it’s time to just anoint Hillary, so why even bother to vote? Or you can actually go out and vote.

Now these so-called  election forecasters (who never mention the fraud factor) are going to try and project the vote to within 1% – with Hillary winning of course. I’m not going to tell you what the final vote will be. I’m not that smart.

But I will say this: Win or lose, Bernie will do much better than reported in the media.

So do the forecast. Below is a matrix table which shows approximately how Bernie will do if he gets 45-65% of the white vote and 45-65% of non-whites. That’s 25 scenarios. It’s called a sensitivity analysis.  Bernie’s total vote share is a function of his share of whites and non-whites.

Fully expect that one of the 25 scenarios will closely match Bernie’s final recorded vote.

Know this: if the CNN exit poll indicates that Bernie had 45% of whites and 45% of non-whites (or 45% overall) do not believe it. In fact, expect that Bernie will do 5-8% better than the recorded vote. Remember the exit poll is always adjusted to match the recorded vote.

So here goes.  Pick out the cell which contains Bernie’s share that you believe will be closest to the final recorded vote. In other words predict Bernie’s recorded share of the white vote and non-white vote, knowing that it will surely understate his True Vote.

For instance, cell C2 = 56.2%

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Race………….. NYReg Sanders Clinton
White…………… 76.6% 55.0% 45.0%
Non-white……… 23.4% 60.0% 40.0%
TOTAL…………….100% 56.2% 43.8%

………………………..Sanders % White
……………………..45.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0%
………………………A……..B……..C……..D…….E
%Non-White………………. Sanders TOTAL
1. 65.0%………….. 49.7% 53.5% 57.3% 61.2% 65.0%
2. 60.0%………….. 48.5% 52.3% 56.2% 60.0% 63.8%
3. 55.0%………….. 47.3% 51.2% 55.0% 58.8% 62.7%
4. 50.0%………….. 46.2% 50.0% 53.8% 57.7% 61.5%
5. 45.0%………….. 45.0% 48.8% 52.7% 56.5% 60.3%

 

2014 NC Senate: Election models indicate that it was likely stolen

Richard Charnin
Jan. 28, 2016

Election Models indicate that the 2014 North Carolina senate election was likely stolen.
Willis (R) defeated Hagan (D) by 45,000 votes (48.8-47.3%).

I. True Vote Model

Given: Obama lost NC in 2012 by 92,000 recorded votes (50.4-48.4%).
Hagan wins by 17,000 votes (48.5-47.9%)

Assume Obama won the True Vote by 185,000 votes (51.4-47.4%),
Hagan wins by 155,000 votes (50.9-45.5%) 

Base Case Assumptions
Assume Obama won in 2012 by 51.4-47.4%.

1) 60% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Hagan had 92% of returning Obama voters
3) Willis had  90% of Romney voters
4) Hagan had 47% and Willis 45% of voters who did not vote in 2012.
Hagan  wins by 155,000 votes: 50.9-45.9%

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Hagan has 88% of returning Obama and 5% of Romney voters.
Hagan loses by 4,000 votes with 48.1%.

Best case scenario: Hagan has 96% of Obama and 9% of Romney voters.
Hagan wins by 314,000 votes with 53.6%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 58% of Obama and 62% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 81,000 votes with 49.6%.

Best case scenario: 62% of Obama and 58% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Hagan wins by 230,000 votes with 52.1%.

II. Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 41.7%- Republicans 30.4%- Independents 27.8%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 36.0%- Republicans 35.0%- Independents 29.0%
Party-ID was adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote

Assumptions:
Party Registration split
61% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans turned out.
Hagan wins by 50.9-45.4% (161,000 votes).

III. Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 260,000 of 3.17 million votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Hagan had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Hagan wins by 206,000 votes (51.6-45.1%)

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NoLTeS9HflwTNJgi5n8nNLdomjxh6eKjoy5FuOmqsVU/pub

 

 

 

Maine 2014 Governor: Three models indicate a stolen election

Richard Charnin
Jan. 26, 2016

Three election models  indicate that the 2014 Maine governor election was likely stolen.

Lepage (R) defeated Michaud (D) by 30,000 votes (48.3-43.3%)
Obama won Maine in 2012 by 109,000 recorded votes (56.3-41.0%).  

True Vote Model

Base Case Assumptions
1) 75% turnout of Obama and Romney voters,
2) Michaud had 86% of returning Obama voters
3) Lepage had  87% of Romney voters
4) Michaud  had 45% and Lepage 39% of voters who did not vote in 2012.

Base Case: Michaud won by 51,000 votes: 50.3-41.2%
In order to match the recorded vote, Lepage needed 23.7% of Obama voters.

Sensitivity analysis I: Returning vote shares

Worst case scenario: Michaud has 82% of returning Obama and 2% of Romney voters.
Michaud wins by 23,000 votes with 47.7%.

Best case scenario: Michaud has 90% of Obama and 6% of Romney voters.
Michaud wins by 88,000 votes with 53.0%.

Sensitivity analysis II: 2012 voter turnout in 2014

Worst case scenario: 73% of Obama and 77% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Michaud wins by 44,000 votes with 49.4%.

Best case scenario: 77% of Obama and 73% of Romney voters return in 2014.
Michaud wins by 67,000 votes with 51.3%.

Voter Turnout Model

Party registration: Democrats 31.9%- Republicans 27.1%- Independents 41.0%
Exit Poll Party-ID: Democrats 30.0%- Republicans 31.0%- Independents 39.0%
76.2% of registered voters turned out.

Assumptions: 74% of Democrats and 78.8% of Republicans turned out.
Michaud wins by 49.2-42.3% (42,000 votes),

To match the recorded vote, Lepage needed 29% of  Democrats, 87% of Republicans and 37% of Independents.

Uncounted Vote Model

Given: 33,000 of 642,000 votes cast were uncounted.
Assumption: Michaud had 75% of the uncounted votes.
Michaud won by 71,000 votes (51.1-40.0%)

 

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
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 WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004