RSS

Tag Archives: sensitivity analysis

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

The 2016 Census indicates that 87.3% of registered voters turned out.
Assume Sanders primary voters did not vote or defected
Trump wins by 48.13-45.33% (3.81 million votes) with 332-206 EV
Given:
– 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.
Results:
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 state exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote (and likely inflated for Clinton), Trump probably did better than indicated.

…………..Clinton Trump
28 states 45.67% 47.67% Exit polls
Votes…… 50,664 52,776


23 states 43.71% 50.40% No exit polls
Votes…… 11,079 12,777


51 states 45.33% 48.13%
Votes…… 61,744 65,554

Row 130: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=857963642

No automatic alt text available.

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 4, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

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

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 24, 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 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
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 15, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

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/

Number of Latino Eligible Voters Is Increasing Faster Than the Number of Latino Voters in Presidential Election Years

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
 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 25, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

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%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 11, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: ,

Exit Poll Party-ID: Sanders vs. Clinton

Richard Charnin
July 17,  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 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

 

 

 

 
4 Comments

Posted by on July 17, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis