RSS

Tag Archives: true vote

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 are falling into the same old media-driven TRAP. They fail to accept 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 – easily.

The odds that the primaries were fraudulent in favor of  Clinton  is 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 accurate in 2016. The  polls also look suspicious in big 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

I analyzed the unadjusted and reported exit polls for the four states and others, comparing the  results to an estimate of the True Vote. The True Vote is based on the Gallup voter affiliation national survey from which  an estimate of each state’s True Party-ID was derrived.  The unadjusted exit polls over-weighted both the Democratic party-ID share as well as Clinton’s share of Independents.  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/23/2016-election-scenario-analysis/

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 to show her winning the average of the unadjusted exit polls by 2.6%, while she lost the average of 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/

 
2 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% x46.0%
 
23 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , , , ,

ELECTION MODEL VS. RECORDED VOTE

Richard Charnin
Nov.9, 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

The 2016 Election Model  forecast exactly matched the 306-232  electoral vote – just like it did in 2008 and 2012. But  Obama did much better in the True Vote.  Trump won the True Vote by  351-187.  View the post:  2016 Election Model Forecast

Final poll and recorded votes shares
Clinton 47.7, Trump 47.5, Johnson 3.3, Stein 1.0
Who believes Jill Stein had just 1.0%? Who did her votes go to?

Before Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA):
Vote………..Clinton….Trump…..Margin…..Evote
Model………..42.9%…..44.4%…..1.5%…….306
Model………..45.4%…..46.9%…..1.5%…….306 (adjust to 100%)
Recorded……47.7%…..47.5%…..-0.2%……306

75% UVA to Trump:
Model………..44.3%…..48.5%…..4.2%…….351
Trump had a 96% popular vote win probability given a 2.5% margin of error.

Election Model vs. National Exit Poll (Party-ID):
Trump wins the EM by 1.5%.
Clinton wins the NEP by 0.4% (forced to match the recorded vote). 

Forecast vs. Actual 

Election Model Gallup Pct Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Democrats 32% 89% 6% 2% 1%
Republicans 28% 5% 89% 3% 1%
Independents 40% 32.6% 43.9% 8.0% 5.0%
Total 94.6% 42.9% 44.4% 4.7% 2.6%
Total-100% 100.0% 45.4% 46.9% 4.9% 2.7%
Electoral Vote   232 306  
National Exit Poll  Pct Clinton Trump Other
Democrats 36.5% 89% 9% 2%
Republicans 32.5% 7% 90% 3%
Independents 31.0% 42% 48% 10%
Total 100.0% 47.8% 47.4% 4.8%
Electoral Vote   232 306

Election Model: Track Record
Exact EV forecast:
2008: Obama 365
2012: Obama 332
2016: Trump 306

 But the recorded votes were fraudulent.
They won the TRUE VOTE by much more…
2008: Obama 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV
2012: Obama 55.2%, 380 EV
2016: Trump 48.5-44.3%%, 351 EV ( 75% UVA to Trump):

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/president

 
27 Comments

Posted by on November 9, 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: , , , , , , , , ,

Strange polls: Jill Stein at 1% and just 14% of respondents are Independents?

Richard Charnin
August 7, 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 Primary spread sheet

Strange polls: Jill Stein at 1% and just 14% of respondents are Independents?

According to the Ipsos/Reuters poll,  only 14% of respondents were Independents and Jill Stein had just 2% of Independents. These results are implausible.

The latest Gallup Party-ID survey indicates that 42% are Independents, 28% Democrats and 28% Republicans. The 2-party shares:  60% Independents, 40% Democrats. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Are we expected to believe that all of Sanders’ primary voters have gone to Clinton and Trump?  http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7324

Ipsos Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 14% 2% 46% 46% 6%
Dem 47% 1% 81% 18% 0%
Rep 39% 1% 5% 80% 14%
Total 100% 1.14% 46.31% 46.22% 6.33%

If Stein matched Sanders’  primary shares of Independents and Democrats, she could win a fair election. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=610570359

Party-ID Gallup Survey Stein (est) Clinton (est) Trump (est) Johnson (est)
Ind 42% 45%  30% 10%  15%
Dem 29%  40% 50%  5% 5%
Rep 29% 5% 5% 80% 10%
Total 100% 31.95% 28.55% 28.85% 10.65%
Votes 129,106 41,249 36,860 37,247 13,750
Elect Vote 538 308 3 227 0

In the primaries (25 exit and 2 entrance polls) Bernie Sanders had  65% of Independents, but just 45.3% of the total vote. 

The 42I-28D-28R Gallup Party-ID survey equates to  60I-40D in the primaries. Using this split for the 27 adjusted exit polls, Clinton needed 83.4% of Democrats to match the recorded vote. The adjusted polls indicate that Sanders had 64.6% of Independents.

This is highly anomalous.  http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls

 

Exit Poll States Gallup Pct Sanders Clinton
IND 60.0% 64.6% 35.4%
Dem 40.0% 16.6% 83.4%
Recorded Match  100.0% 45.3% 54.7%
Recorded Vote 45.3% 54.7%

If  Sanders had 37% of Democrats, he would have had a total 53.6% share.

Exit Poll States Gallup Pct Sanders Clinton
IND 60.0% 64.6% 35.4%
Dem 40.0% 37.0% 63.0%
Est. True Vote 100.0% 53.6% 46.4%
Recorded 45.3% 54.7%

Jill Stein Polling Sensitivity analysis

Assuming Independents are 40% of the electorate, then for Jill Stein to have
5%(implausible), she needs 12% of Independents and 0% of Democrats and Republicans.
10%(conservative), she needs 17% of Independents and 5% of Democrats and Republicans.
20%(plausible), she needs 35% of Independents and 10% of Democrats and Republicans.
30%(optimistic), she needs 52% of Independents and 15% of Democrats and Republicans.

 

Sanders had  52% of Independents in the 11 RED states. Clinton needed an IMPLAUSIBLE 97% of Democrats to match the recorded vote.

Sanders had  an estimated 65% of Independents in the 40 BLUE/OTHER states. If he had 30% of Democrats, he would have had 51%.

 RED STATES Pct Sanders Clinton
IND 58.6% 52.0% 48.0%
 Req. to Match Dem 41.4% 3.0% 97.0%
Calc Match 100.0% 31.7% 68.3%
Recorded 31.7% 68.3%
OTHER STATES
IND 60.0% 65.0% 35.0%
Dem 40.0% 30.3% 69.8%
Calc Match 100.0% 51.1% 48.9%
Total Vote 51.1% 48.9%
 RED STATES 2-party Recorded 160
IND IND Sanders EV
AL 37.6% 57.6% 19.8% 9
AR 39.6% 57.5% 31.0% 6
FL 44.5% 59.3% 34.1% 29
GA 38.7% 55.7% 28.3% 16
LA 58.9% 73.4% 24.6% 8
MS 37.4% 55.5% 16.6% 6
NC 45.5% 58.0% 42.8% 15
SC 38.0% 55.2% 26.1% 9
TN 39.0% 58.5% 32.9% 11
TX 41.7% 58.8% 33.7% 38
VA 38.6% 55.0% 35.4% 13
avg 41.8% 58.6% 29.6%
Weighted Avg 42.0% 58.5% 31.7%
 
8 Comments

Posted by on August 7, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis