RSS

Tag Archives: true vote

Trump won the True vote; Clinton won the Fraudulent Recorded vote

Richard Charnin
June 24, 2017
Updated: July 10,2017

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

Hillary Clinton’s 2.9 million recorded vote margin is a myth. The simple proof: ALL elections are fraudulent. THE RECORDED VOTE IS NEVER EQUAL TO THE TRUE VOTE. Mainstream media pre-election and exit polls were rigged for Clinton.  

She won the Recorded Vote 48.3-46.2% . Trump had 306 EV. The True Vote Model indicates that Trump won by 48-44% (5 million votes) with 351 EV. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/2016-election-model-forecast/

1988-2012: Democrats won the True Vote and the unadjusted exit polls 52-42%. They won the recorded vote by 48-46%. They won the True Vote in every election. The exit polls and the True Vote Model indicated that the 1988,2000 and 2004 elections were stolen.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

So what changed in 2016? The establishment was in the tank for Clinton. The pre-election and exit polls were biased in her favor. Trump won the primaries easily; Clinton had to cheat Bernie. Trump and Bernie drew big crowds, Clinton drew small crowds. Trump and Bernie won (non-scientific) online debate polls by large margins.

2016 Democratic primary: 11 of 26 unadjusted exit polls exceeded the MoE for Sanders. Odds against: 79 billion to one.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/democratic-primaries-election-fraud-probability-analysis/

2016 Election: Clinton led 9 pre-election polls by 2.5% – exactly matching the recorded vote.
Pre-election polls were rigged for Clinton. Democratic Party ID was inflated.
True National Party ID was 40-I-32D-28R
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1036175945

Unadjusted exit polls were also rigged for Clinton. Large exit poll discrepancies favored Clinton in the Rust belt and Red states.  Exit polls matched the recorded vote in large states (i.e. CA). If the recorded vote was bogus, then the unadjusted exit polls must have also overstated Clinton shares. In NY the 5% discrepancy actually favored Trump.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/why-the-recorded-vote-and-unadjusted-exit-polls-are-wrong/

True Vote Sensitivity Analysis – returning 2012 voters. Trump wins all 25 scenarios. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1768941212

Ohio unadjusted exit poll indicated a implausible 47% tie .  Trump won Ohio by 51.7-43.6%. But the unadjusted poll indicates that he won by just 47.1-47.0%. To match the unadjusted poll, Clinton needed to win Independents by 50-35%, an implausible margin.  However, the final Ohio exit poll (which is always matched to the recorded vote) indicated that Trump won Independents by 51-38%.

Humboldt County, CA is only US county with an Open Source foolproof vote count/audit. Bernie had his highest CA share in Humboldt (71%). Jill Stein had her highest share there(6%) compared to 1% elsewhere.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/01/01/more-clues-on-election-fraud-from-humboldt-cty-ca/

Voter turnout: millions of Sanders voters a) did not turnout, b) voted for Stein, c) voted for Trump,
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/2016-voter-turnout-and-vote-share-sensitivity-analysis-trump-won-the-popular-vote/

Trump and Bernie each won Independents by 10%. Trump had a higher percentage of Republicans than Clinton had of Democrats.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1042213556

“Crosscheck”: It is estimated that one million votes were suppressed, costing Hillary.
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

Illegal voters: Estimated at 1-5 million. Obama encouraged illegals to vote.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/2016-true-vote-sensitivity-analysis-illegal-voters-uncounted-votes-machine-vote-flipping/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/06/20/report-as-many-as-5-7-million-non-citizens-voted-in-2008-election
http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-encourages-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

Fraction Magic: votes were flipped to Clinton on Central tabulators (Bev Harris)
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/

Hillary supporter George Soros had an interest in voting machines in 16 states.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2176907-voting-machines-in-16-states-tied-to-george-soros-ally/

Recounts in MI and WI showed that Trump did better than reported. Wayne County, MI had more votes than registered voters.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

National Exit Poll- When Decided:  The NEP is ALWAYS adjusted to match the recorded vote. The 2016 NEP indicates that 26% of voters decided after Oct.1;  48%  voted for Trump and 40% for Clinton. Of the 74% who decided before Oct.1, Clinton led 51-45%.

The 2016 NEP indicates that 40% of voters decided after Sept.1. Trump won these voters by 48.0-42.0%. Clinton won voters who decided before Sept.1 by 52.5-45.0%. Since the poll was forced to match Clinton’s 48.3-46.2% recorded vote, it appears that her pre-Sept. vote share was inflated.

The third-party Recorded vote is another clue that Clinton’s vote was rigged.
According to the National Exit Poll, 4% of voters who decided before Oct.1 voted for a third party candidate; 12% voted third party after Oct.1. Jill Stein had just 1% of the total recorded vote. Could it be that Jill really had at least 3% of which 2% or more were shifted to Clinton?

Decided Pct Clinton Trump Other
Post Oct. 1 26% 40.0% 48.0% 12.0%
Pre Oct. 1.. 74% 51.0% 45.0% 4.0%
Total……… 100% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5%

Decided Pct Clinton Trump Other
Post Sept. 1 40% 42.0% 48.0% 10.0%
Pre Sept 1.. 60% 52.5% 45.0% 2.5%
Total……… 100% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5%

Were Clinton’s pre-Oct.  poll shares rigged to match the recorded vote? Clinton won the national recorded vote by 2.9 million. She won IL, CA and NY by a combined 7 million votes. So Trump won the recorded vote by at least 4 million everywhere else. But Trump’s True Vote margin had to be higher than 4 million. Here’s why: As many as 3 million of Clinton’s 7 million margin in IL, CA and NY may have been fraudulent- matching her national 3 million margin. Were Clinton’s votes inflated (rigged) in these and other states?

State exit poll………….. IL…….. CA……. NY
Total Recorded %…… 56-39-5.. 62-32-4. 60-37-3
Before Oct.1………….66-32-2.. 67-29-4. 67-31-2 < Rigged?
After Oct.1………….. 33-55-12. 51-42-7. 38-53-9 < shift to Trump & 3rd party
Votes (mil)…………….. 5.5……. 14.2……. 7.5
Margin (mil)…………… 0.95……. 4.3…….. 1.7 Total 6.95 million

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/pubchart?oid=729649900&format=image

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 24, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 24, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2016 True Vote Sensitivity analysis: illegal voters, uncounted votes, machine vote flipping

Richard Charnin
Feb. 25, 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

This is an analysis of the 2016 Presidential True Vote. 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 (80% for Clinton). View this 1988-2016 trend analysis of Hispanic voter registration and turnout.

According to Greg Palast,  over one million  Democratic minority voters were disenfranchised via  Crosscheck,  a system which eliminated voters with duplicate names from voter rolls.

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. The results confirm other analyses which show that Trump won the popular vote.

Let TV = True Vote
RV = Recorded vote
Then we have:
RV = TV + Fraud

Given:
Recorded vote in millions:
Clinton 65.7, Trump 62.9, Other 7.6
Election fraud components:
F =Vote flipping on maliciously coded, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators
I = Illegal voters (non-citizens)
U = Uncounted votes (spoiled ballots, disenfranchised voters)

Base Case Assumptions
I = 3  million: 2.4 million voted for Clinton,  0.6 million for Trump
U =7 million: 5.6 million voted for Clinton, 1.4 million for Trump
F= 4 million (net): 5.6% ( 1 in 18) of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. 
Trump wins by 2.8 million: 67.7-64.9 (48.3-46.3%)

Sensitivity Analysis
Given: U=7 million (5.6 million to Clinton, 1.4 million to Trump)
Worst case: (I=4 million, F=3 million) Clinton wins by 0.83 million
Base case: (I=3 million, F=4 million) Trump wins by 2.77 million
Best case: (I=2 million, F= 5 million) Trump wins by 3.57 million

Assume the following changes to the base case assumptions:
I = 2  million: 1.6 million voted for Clinton,  0.4 million for Trump
U = 3 million: 2.7 million voted for Clinton, 0.3 million for Trump
F= 4 million (net): 5.6% ( 1 in 18) of Trump’s votes flipped to Clinton on voting machines and central tabulators. 
Trump wins by 4.0 million: 66.8-62.8 (48.7-45.8%)

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

 Base Case Total Clinton Trump Other
Recorded vote 136.22 65.72 62.89 7.61
    48.25% 46.17% 5.59%
Illegal -3.0 -2.4 -0.6 0
Uncounted +7.0 5.6 1.4 0
Vote Flip  – -4.0 4.0 0
True Vote 140.22 64.9 67.7 7.6
 Base Case   46.3% 48.3% 5.4%
Illegals  4.0 3.0  2.0
Flip  Trump
5.0 67.7 67.9 68.1
4.0 67.5 67.7 67.9
3.0 65.9 66.1 66.3
 
 Illegals  4.0 3.0 2.0
Flip Trump %
5.0 48.3% 48.4% 48.6%
4.0 48.1% 48.3% 48.4%
3.0 47.0% 47.1% 47.3%
 
 Illegals  4.0 3.0 2.0
Flip Clinton %
5.0 46.3% 46.2% 46.0%
4.0 46.4% 46.3% 46.2%
3.0 47.6% 47.4% 47.3%
 Illegals  4.0 3.0 2.0
Trump
Flip  Margin
5.0 2.77 3.17 3.57
4.0 2.37 2.77 3.17
3.0 -0.83 -0.43 -0.03
 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 25, 2017 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Analysis of 28 State Exit Polls vs. Recorded Vote vs. True Vote

Richard Charnin
Updated: Dec. 14, 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

Only 28 states were exit polled.  This analysis shows why the unadjusted exit polls are not plausible. Trump won the True Vote. 
a) He won Independents by  7.7% over Clinton.
b) Independents outnumbered Democrats by 6.7%.

Methodology
The state Party-ID crosstab (reported vote) is the basis for the analysis.
Exit Polls: Reported Party-ID weights. Independent vote shares adjusted to force a match to the total exit poll shares.

True Vote Calculation
State Party-ID is based on the Gallup National voter affiliation survey.
Method 1- Reported vote shares (CNN).
Method 2- Vote shares calculated in the Election Model.

Summary (28 states)
Unadjusted exit polls: Clinton leads 47.6-44.6% (unweighted average)
Party-ID: 35.1D – 32.7R – 32.2I (Dems outnumber Independents by 2.9%)
Share of Independents: Clinton 44.0-Trump 40.6% (not plausible)

Reported Vote (CNN)
Trump 47.3-46.7% (unweighted average)
Party-ID: 35.1D – 32.7R – 32.2I (Dems outnumber Independents by 2.9%)
Share of Independents: Trump 48.0-Clinton 40.3% (plausible)

True Vote
Model 1: Trump 46.7-46.0% (unweighted, reported vote shares)
Model 2: Trump 48.4-43.8% (unweighted, Election Model shares)
Party-ID: 32.0D – 29.3R – 38.7I (Independents outnumber Dems by 6.7%)

States Flipped from the Reported to the True Vote
True Vote 1:
Trump to Clinton: PA and FL (42 EV)
Clinton to Trump: VA NV NH CO (39 EV)
True Vote 2:
Trump to Clinton: PA
Clinton to Trump: VA NV NH MN ME CO …. WA OR NM

Notes:
-The model is probably wrong on WA and OR flipping to Trump.
-Trump leads 51.2-43.8% in the 22 states (and  D.C.) which were not polled.
-Clinton won NY and CA by at least 5 million votes, almost double her 2.7 national margin. Her True Vote margin in NY and CA is approximately 2.5 million.

The calculations are displayed as follows:
Unadjusted ….. Reported…..True Vote
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

Link to TDMS Research exit poll table
http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 13, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Clinton’s popular vote “margin” is a myth: the Recorded vote is always fraudulent

Richard Charnin
Dec. 10, 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’s popular vote “margin” is a myth: the Recorded vote is always fraudulent.

Those who cite Clinton’s lead in the popular vote fall into the same old media-driven TRAP. They fail to realize the FACT that the recorded vote is ALWAYS fraudulent – as it was in this election. The True Vote Model indicates Trump won the popular as well as the electoral vote.

The primaries were rigged in favor of  Clinton. The odds: 77 billion to one – based on exit poll discrepancies. But the 2016  election was different. The corporate media (the National Election Pool) which funds the pollster’s pre-election and exit polls were heavily biased in favor of Clinton.

Election analysts calculated that Clinton won the  Electoral vote by 302-236 based on unadjusted exit polls  which favored Clinton in four states that Trump won: WI, NC, MI and PA. But the analysis assumes that the exit polls were fairly conducted. The polls appear to have been the impetus for recounting MI, WI and PA. But why only recount states that Trump narrowly won? I asked the question in this post: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/the-2016-presidential-recounts-why-not-add-these-six-states/

Just because unadjusted exit polls were excellent indicators of fraud in the past does not mean that they were in 2016. The  polls look suspicious in states where they closely matched the recorded vote:  CA IL MI TX MN WA NY. Clinton’s CA margin exceeded Obama’s by an implausible 6%. An unknown number of illegals were encouraged to vote by Obama. http://tdmsresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-Election-Table_Nov-17.-2016.jpg

Unadjusted and reported exit polls were compared to an estimate of the True Vote. The True Vote Model was based on the Gallup voter affiliation national survey to estimate each state’s Party-ID.  The unadjusted polls over-weighted Democratic party-ID and Clinton’s share of Independents.  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/23/2016-election-scenario-analysis/

2016 Election Model:  27 Adjusted state exit polls vs. Recorded Vote vs. True Vote + 24 states recorded vote https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

These tables display a summary of 9 states. They show that a) the Democratic Party-ID share was inflated compared to the estimated Party-ID based on the Gallup survey and b)  the unadjusted exit polls over-weighted Clinton’s share of Independents compared to the Reported and True Vote. As a result, Clinton’s unadjusted vote share was inflated, showing her winning the  unadjusted exit poll average by 2.6% while losing the Reported and True Votes by 3.5% and 3.6%, respectively.

Unadj EP   Reported   True Vote  
Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 48.4% 45.8% 46.1% 49.6% 44.6% 48.2%
Diff -2.6% 3.5% 3.6%
OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 44.1% 49.2%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 45.9% 46.6%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 44.6% 46.4%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.8% 45.8%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.7% 45.3% 47.8%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 41.5% 51.7%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 41.1% 50.6%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.9% 47.7%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 44.9% 48.1%

9-State Summary

9-states Reported     Gallup adj
Party-ID Dem Rep Ind Dem Rep Ind
 Average 36% 34% 30% 32.9% 28.9% 38.2%
Average   Unadj EP   Reported   True Vote  
Share of Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Ind 47.7% 40.2% 39.0% 52.8% 36.3% 50.7%
Vote 48.4% 45.8% 46.1% 49.6% 44.6% 48.2%

1988-2008

An analysis of 274 state and 6 national unadjusted exit polls from 1988-2008 prove systemic election fraud beyond any doubt (the odds are trillions to one) as well as in the 2016 primaries.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/1988-2008-unadjusted-state-exit-polls-statistical-reference/

Recall the 2004 stolen election in which Bush defeated Kerry by 50.7-48.3% ( 3 million bogus popular votes)- which was promoted all over the media.  Kerry actually won the True vote by 6-10 million (he had 51-53.5%). Bush did not want a repeat of the 2000 election in which Gore won the official (bogus) popular vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-4 million). Bush needed to win the popular vote in 2004, so his vote share was padded in big states that Kerry won easily- like NY and CA.

The 2016 Election Model: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/election-model-vs-recorded-vote/ https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/2016-election-model-forecast/

A brief history of election fraud:  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/proving-election-fraud-the-pc-spreadsheets-and-the-internet/

 

 
3 Comments

Posted by on December 10, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

The 2016 presidential recounts: why not add these six states?

Richard Charnin
Dec.1, 2016
Updated: Dec.11,2016

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 Exit Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton seek recounts in three close states that Trump won: WI, PA, MI. This is an analysis of six states that Clinton barely won. Shouldn’t they be re-counted as well?

The 2016 Election Model exactly forecast the official recorded electoral vote: 306 – 232. It also forecast the True electoral vote as 351-187 (after  undecided voter allocation). Trump would win the True EV if he won six states he narrowly lost: VA NV MN NH ME CO.

View the spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=0

Exit Polls are always forced to match the Reported vote

NH
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won NH by 3,000 votes (47.6-47.2%)
Party-ID: 36D-33R-31I.
Using the same vote shares, but with a 21.5D-23.9R-54.6I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey (32D-28R-40I),
Trump won NH by 28,000 votes (47.9-44.0%).
MN
Final  Exit Poll: Clinton won MN by 44,000 votes (46.9-45.4%)
Party-ID: 37D-35R-28I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated  34.7D-31R-34.3I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey.
Trump won MN by 31,000 votes (47.2-46.1%).

ME
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won ME by 20,000 votes (47.9-45.2%)
Party-ID: 31D-30R-39I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated  25.2D-21.6R-53.3I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey,
Trump won ME by 24,000 votes (47.3-44.1%).

CO
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won CO by 75,000 votes (47.3-44.4%)
Party-ID: 32D-24R-33I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated 24.4D-26.2R-49.5I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey,
Trump won CO by 86,000 votes (47.5-44.1%).

NV
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won NV by 26,000 votes (47.7-45.5%)
Party-ID: 36D-28R-36I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated 31.3D-27.5R-41.2I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey,
Trump won NV by 20,000 votes (47.2-45.5%)

VA
Final  Exit Poll (CNN): Clinton won VA by 186,000 votes (49.9-45.0%)
Party-ID: 40D-33R-26I.
Using the same vote shares, but with an estimated 31.6D-33.4R-35I Party-ID
derived from the Gallup National survey,
Trump won VA by 60,000 votes (48.1-46.1%).

These states look fraudulent (vote padding?)
IL
Final Exit Poll: Clinton won IL by 859,000 votes (55.4-39.4%)
Party-ID: 45D-30R-25I
Using the same vote shares with an estimated
Party-ID: 37.1D-27.8R-35.1I derived from the Gallup National survey
Clinton won IL by 336,000 votes (51.1-41.4%).

CA
Final Exit Poll: 84% of precincts reporting
Clinton won CA by 3,390,000 votes (61.6-32.7%)
Party-ID: 47D-23R-30I.
Using the same vote shares,
Clinton won CA by 2,305,000 votes (56.1-36.5%).with
Party-ID: 34.2D-22.3R-43.5I

SUMMARY COMPARISON (based on Party-ID)

Unadj   Reported   True Vote  
Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 48.39% 45.80% 46.14% 49.65% 44.38% 48.65%
Diff   -2.59%   3.51%   4.27%
OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 44.1% 49.2%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 46.5% 48.1%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 46.3% 44.7%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.8% 45.8%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.7% 45.3% 47.8%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 37.2% 57.4%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 42.4% 49.4%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.0% 47.6%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 44.9% 48.1%
         
% Share of Ind  Unadj   Reported   True Vote  
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 47.67% 40.19% 39.17% 53.09% 35.11% 52.00%
Diff   -7.48%   13.92%   16.89%
OH 50.0% 34.0% 38.0% 52.0% 38.0% 52.0%
NC 47.0% 43.0% 37.0% 53.0% 37.0% 53.0%
NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 36.0% 52.0%
PA 50.0% 43.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 53.0%
MI 32.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.3% 35.0% 51.0%
MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 28.0% 62.0%
IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 52.0%
FL 48.0% 43.0% 43.0% 47.0% 30.0% 53.0%
WI 48.0% 37.0% 43.0% 46.0% 43.0% 46.0%
VA
Unadj Exit Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein Other
Dem 40.0% 92% 6% 1% 0% 1%
Rep 33.0% 6% 88% 3% 0% 3%
Ind 26.0% 47% 45% 6% 2% 0%
Calc 100.0% 51.0% 43.1% 3.0% 0.5% 2%
Unadj 100.0% 50.9% 43.2% 3.7% 2.2%
Votes (000) 3,792 1,930 1,638 140 83
Margin -292 -7.7%
VA
Reported Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein Other
Dem 40.0% 92% 6% 1% 0% 1%
Rep 33.0% 6% 88% 3% 0% 3%
Ind 26.0% 43% 48% 6% 2% 1%
Calc 100.0% 50.0% 43.9% 3.0% 0.5% 3%
Reported 100.0% 49.9% 45.0% 3.2% 1.9%
Votes (000) 3,792 1,917 1,731 117 27
Margin -186 -4.8%
VA
True Vote Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein Other
Dem 31.6% 92% 6% 1% 0% 1%
Rep 33.4% 6% 88% 3% 0% 3%
Ind 35.0% 43% 48% 6% 2% 1%
Calc 100.0% 46.1% 48.1% 3.4% 0.7% 1.7%
TVM bef UVA 95.0% 41.2% 47.0% 4.4% 2.4%
True Vote 100.0% 42.4% 50.7% 4.4% 2.4%
Votes (000) 3,021 1,282 1,533 134 73
Margin 251 8.3%
Votes (calc) 3,021 1,393 1,453 103 21
60 2.0%
 
3 Comments

Posted by on December 1, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2016 Election Scenario Analysis

Richard Charnin
Nov. 23, 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 Exit Poll
LINKS TO  POSTS

This is an analysis of four election scenarios. 

1. Gallup Party-ID and True Vote Model (TVM) vote shares
2. Gallup Party-ID and National Exit Poll (NEP) vote shares
3. NEP Party-ID and NEP vote shares
4. NEP Party-ID and TVM vote shares

It is a FACT: the Reported vote is NEVER equal to the True Vote. The pundits always brainwash the public into assuming that the Reported vote represents True voter intent. 

The National Exit Poll is always forced to match the Reported vote  (view Scenario 3).
NEP Party-ID is 36D-33R-31I.
Clinton leads Trump by 2.03 million votes: 47.7-46.2%.
Others (including Johnson and Stein) have just 6.1% combined. Stein has 1%.

The True Vote Model (Scenario 1) uses Gallup Party-ID: 40I-32D-28R.
Trump leads Clinton by 2.18 million votes: 45.7-44.0%.  How many of the Other 10.3% voted for Jill Stein? Surely more than 1%. Probably close to 5%.

It is clear that the third party vote is a key factor. Jill Stein had an implausibly low 1% share. Where did her votes go?  Compare Trump’s 2.18 million True Vote margin in Scenario 1, in which third parties had 10.3%, to his negative margins in scenarios 2 and 3 where third parties had 6-7%. The differential  indicates that Stein did better than 1%. Her votes were stolen.

Exit poll discrepancies: http://tdmsresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Presidential-Election-Table_Nov-17.-2016.jpg

 True Vote Sensitivity Analysis: Calculate Trump’s vote margins over a range of his shares of Republicans and Independents.

 1. Gallup/TVM  Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 89% 9% 2%
Rep 28% 7% 90% 3%
Ind 40% 34% 44% 22%
TVM Total 100% 44.0% 45.7% 10.3%
Votes (mil) 133.26 58.69 60.87 13.70
2. Gallup/NEP   Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 32% 89% 8% 3%
Rep 28% 8% 88% 4%
Ind 40% 42% 46% 12%
Total 100% 47.5% 45.6% 6.9%
Votes (mil) 133.26 63.33 60.77 9.17
3. NEP/NEP Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89% 8% 3%
Rep 33% 8% 88% 4%
Ind 31% 42% 46% 12%
Total 100% 47.7% 46.2% 6.1%
Votes (mil) 133.26 63.57 61.54 8.16
4. NEP/TVM Party-ID Clinton Trump Other
Dem 36% 89% 9% 2%
Rep 33% 7% 90% 3%
Ind 31% 34% 44% 22%
Total 100% 44.9% 46.6% 8.5%
Votes (mil) 133.26 59.82 62.07 11.37

True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis

Scenario 1 Trump % Rep
Trump 85.0% 87.0% 89.0% 91.0% 93.0%
% Ind Trump
48% 46.2% 46.7% 47.3% 47.8% 48.4%
44% 44.6% 45.1% 45.7% 46.2% 46.8%
40% 43.0% 43.5% 44.1% 44.6% 45.2%
Clinton
48% 43.6% 43.0% 42.4% 41.9% 41.3%
44% 45.2% 44.6% 44.0% 43.5% 42.9%
40% 46.8% 46.2% 45.6% 45.1% 44.5%
 Share Margin
48% 2.6% 3.7% 4.8% 6.0% 7.1%
44% -0.6% 0.5% 1.6% 2.8% 3.9%
40% -3.8% -2.7% -1.6% -0.4% 0.7%
 Vote (000)  Margin 
48% 3.5 5.0 6.4 7.9 9.4
44% -0.8 0.7 2.2 3.7 5.2
40% -5.1 -3.6 -2.1 -0.6 0.9

Summary Comparison (based on Party-ID)

Unadjusted Exit Poll   Reported Vote   True Vote  
Vote Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 48.4% 45.8% 46.1% 49.6% 44.6% 48.4%
Diff   -2.6%   3.5%   3.9%
OH 47.0% 47.1% 43.5% 52.1% 43.9% 51.4%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 45.9% 46.6%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 44.6% 46.4%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.8% 45.8%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.7% 45.3% 47.8%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 41.5% 51.7%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 41.1% 50.6%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.9% 47.7%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 48.2% 45.2%
Share of  Indep-endents       
Unadjusted Exit Poll   Reported Vote   True Vote  
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Avg 47.3% 40.3% 39.2% 53.1% 36.1% 50.2%
Diff   -7.0%   13.9%   14.1%
OH 50.0% 34.0% 38.0% 52.0% 38.0% 52.0%
NC 44.0% 44.0% 38.5% 56.0% 35.0% 49.0%
NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 36.0% 52.0%
PA 50.0% 43.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 53.0%
MI 32.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.3% 45.0% 56.3%
MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 39.0% 45.0%
IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 51.0%
FL 48.0% 43.0% 48.0% 50.5% 32.0% 53.0%
WI 48.0% 37.0% 43.0% 46.0% 43.0% 46.0%
 
23 Comments

Posted by on November 23, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis