RSS

Tag Archives: true vote

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: , , , , ,

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 , using Gallup Party-ID and the average of 9 pre-election polls, exactly matched the 306-232  electoral vote.  But Trump won the True Vote by  351-187.   

National Exit Poll matched to the recorded vote
Clinton 48.2, Trump 46.1, Johnson 3.2, 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……48.2%…..46.1%…..-2.1%……306

75% UVA (undecided voters allocated to Trump):
True Vote……44.3%…..48.5%…..4.2%…….351
Trump had a 96% popular vote win probability assuming 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  2.1% (forced to match the recorded vote). 

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  
Recorded NEP Pct Clinton Trump Other
Democrats 36% 90% 8% 2%
Republicans 33% 8% 88% 4%
Independents 31% 42% 46% 10%
Total 100% 48.2% 46.1% 4.8%
Electoral Vote   232 306

Election Model: Track Record
Recorded EV forecast vs. True Vote:
2008: Obama 365 EV vs. Obama 58.0-40.4%, 420 EV
2012: Obama 332 EV vs. Obama 55.2%, 380 EV
2016: Trump 306 EV vs. Trump 48.5-44.3%, 306 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: , , , , , , ,

Democratic Primary True Vote Model: Sanders has 52%

Democratic Primaries True Vote Model: Bernie has 52%

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 21, 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

This model estimates Sanders’ True Vote. The base case estimate is that Sanders had 52% of the total vote in primaries and caucuses.

It is important to note that Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his
1) recorded share  in 24 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  
2) recorded share by greater than the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on?

TRUE VOTE MODEL BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS

1.Sanders won the caucuses with 63.9% 
2.  10% of voters  were disenfranchised  (voter rolls, provisional ballots, etc.) .
3. Sanders won 70% of uncounted votes 
4. 15% of Sanders’ votes flipped to Clinton.

Sensitivity analysis tables display the effects of  flipped votes and uncounted provisional ballots  over a range of assumptions.

 Sanders NATIONAL VOTE   Sensitivity  
     Uncounted Ballots  
70% of Uncounted Votes to Sanders 5% 10% 15%
Machine counted Votes Flipped to Sanders   Sanders Total Share  
20% 51.7% 52.5% 53.2%
15% 51.2% 51.88% 52.6%
10% 50.6% 51.3% 52.0%

CALIFORNIA

Assuming a) 30% of California voters were disenfranchised, b) Sanders had 75% of provisional ballots, c) 10% of votes were flipped,  Sanders won CA with a 55% share.

On Election Day, Clinton led Sanders 56.4-43.6%.  Sanders leads in votes counted since ElectionDay by 52.3-47.7% .  This indicates that approximately 15% of Sander’s machine votes were flipped to Clinton.  Sanders  late vote share exceeded his Election Day share in every CA county. Greg Palast explains why Bernie won California.

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%

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%

 

  Clinton Sanders Margin
  TOTAL RECORDED 53.47% 46.53% -6.95%
    TRUE VOTE 48.34% 51.66% 3.32%
           
CAUCUS Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
  36.1% 63.9% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
IA 50.1% 49.9% 50.1% 49.9% -0.3%
NV 52.7% 47.3% 52.7% 47.3% -5.3%
CO 40.6% 59.4% 40.6% 59.4% 18.8%
MN 38.4% 61.6% 38.4% 61.6% 23.3%
KS 32.3% 67.7% 32.3% 67.7% 35.5%
NE 42.9% 57.1% 42.9% 57.1% 14.3%
ME 35.6% 64.4% 35.6% 64.4% 28.7%
ID 22.0% 78.0% 22.0% 78.0% 56.0%
UT 20.7% 79.3% 20.7% 79.3% 58.6%
AK 18.4% 81.6% 18.4% 81.6% 63.3%
HI 30.1% 69.9% 30.1% 69.9% 39.8%
WA 27.1% 72.9% 27.1% 72.9% 45.7%
WY 45.3% 54.7% 45.3% 54.7% 9.4%
ND 28.5% 71.5% 28.5% 71.5% 43.0%
EXIT POLL   UNCTD ADJUST    
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 53.99% 46.01% 53.05% 46.95% -6.09%
VT 13.0% 87.0% 12.6% 87.4% 74.9%
NH 39.6% 60.4% 38.7% 61.3% 22.6%
WI 37.0% 63.0% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
NC 56.3% 43.7% 55.4% 44.6% -10.8%
FL 64.0% 36.0% 63.1% 36.9% -26.1%
SC 68.7% 31.3% 67.8% 32.2% -35.7%
OH 51.9% 48.1% 51.0% 49.0% -1.9%
MI 46.8% 53.2% 45.9% 54.1% 8.2%
VA 62.4% 37.6% 61.6% 38.4% -23.1%
MS 83.4% 16.6% 82.9% 17.1% -65.7%
GA 65.7% 34.3% 64.9% 35.1% -29.7%
TX 61.5% 38.5% 60.6% 39.4% -21.2%
IL 48.8% 51.2% 47.9% 52.1% 4.2%
IN 44.6% 55.4% 43.7% 56.3% 12.6%
PA 54.7% 45.3% 53.8% 46.2% -7.5%
NY 52.0% 48.0% 51.0% 49.0% -2.1%
MA 46.7% 53.3% 45.8% 54.2% 8.4%
CT 51.6% 48.4% 50.7% 49.3% -1.4%
AZ 37.0% 63.0% 36.1% 63.9% 27.8%
AL 73.2% 26.8% 72.4% 27.6% -44.8%
TN 63.2% 36.8% 62.3% 37.7% -24.6%
AR 66.0% 34.0% 65.2% 34.8% -30.3%
MD 65.6% 34.4% 64.8% 35.2% -29.5%
MO 48.1% 51.9% 47.2% 52.8% 5.7%
OK 47.8% 52.2% 46.8% 53.2% 6.3%
WV 39.9% 60.1% 39.0% 61.0% 22.0%
NO EXIT POLL   UNCTD / FLIPPED ADJUST    
  Clinton Sanders Clinton Sanders Margin
Total 54.96% 45.04% 45.77% 54.23% 8.45%
CA 54.22% 45.78% 44.62% 55.38% 10.76%
KY 50.2% 49.8% 41.5% 58.5% 16.9%
MT 46.6% 53.4% 38.8% 61.2% 22.5%
NJ 63.2% 36.8% 51.5% 48.5% -3.1%
NM 51.5% 48.5% 42.6% 57.4% 14.9%
SD 51.0% 49.0% 42.2% 57.8% 15.7%
LA 75.4% 24.6% 61.0% 39.0% -22.0%
DE 60.4% 39.6% 49.4% 50.6% 1.2%
RI 44.1% 55.9% 36.8% 63.2% 26.4%
OR 43.3% 56.7% 43.3% 56.7% 13.3%
DC 79.5% 20.5% 64.2% 35.8% -28.4%

Based on the following table of 25 Democratic primary exit polls (assuming confirmation that the WI and CT  polls exceeded the MoE), the probability P that at least 12 would exceed the MoE is
 P= 2.30E-13  or 1 in 4.3 trillion.
P= 1-binomdist (11,25,0.025,true)

Democratic Party Table. 2016 Primaries

 
28 Comments

Posted by on June 19, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

2014 Senate Exit Polls: Where are the minority voters?

Richard Charnin
Feb.1, 2016

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

2014 Senate Exit Polls:  Where are the Minority Vote Shares?

It is instructive to view the 2014 Senate Exit Polls in  North Carolina, Alaska and Colorado. These were close elections won by the Republicans.

In each poll, vote shares for minority voters are missing, although the percentages of the total vote are listed.  As usual, the exit polls matched the recorded vote.  But when plausible minority vote share estimates are added, the Democrat is the winner.

North Carolina

Tillis (R) was a 48.8-47.3% winner.

Just 95% of the  2783 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote. 

Assume that Hagan won 70% of the missing Hispanics, Asians and Other voters. 

Hagan wins by 48.1-47.5%.

NC 2014
Exit Poll 2783 respondents MoE: 2.41%
Pct Hagan (D) Tillis (R) Haugh (I)
Whiite 74% 33% 62% 4%
Black 21% 96% 3% 1%
Hispanic 3% na na na
Asian 1% na na na
Other 1% na na na
Adj.Share 95% 44.6% 46.5% 3.2%
Recorded 100% 47.3% 48.8% 3.7%
True Share Hagan Tillis Haugh
White 74% 33% 62% 4%
Black 21% 96% 3% 1%
Hispanic 3% 70% 20% 10%
Asian 1% 70% 20% 10%
Other 1% 70% 20% 10%
True share 100% 48.1% 47.5% 3.7%
Recorded 100% 47.3% 48.8% 3.7%

 

Alaska

Sullivan (R) was a 48.8-45.6% winner.

Just 86% of 1,826 exit poll respondents vote shares are given. The published share is a close match to the recorded vote.

Assume Begich won 94% of missing Blacks and just 50% of Hispanic and  Asian voters (conservative).

Begich is a 48.0-46.6% winner. 

AK 2014
Exit Poll 1826 respondents MoE: 2.98%
Race Begich (D) Sullivan (R) Other
White 78% 45% 49% 6%
Black 3% na na na
Hispanic 5% na na na
Asian 6% na na na
Alaskan 8% 57% 38% 5%
Adj.Share 86.0% 39.7% 41.3% 5.1%
Recorded 100% 45.6% 48.8% 3.7%
True Share Begich (D) Sullivan (R) Other
White 78% 45% 49% 6%
Black 3% 94% 4% 2%
Hispanic 5% 50% 47% 3%
Asian 6% 50% 47% 3%
Alaskan 8% 57% 38% 5%
True share 100% 48.0% 46.6% 5.5%
Recorded 100% 45.6% 48.8% 5.6%

 

 

Colorado

Garner won the recorded vote by 48.5-46.0%.

A whopping 20% of 994 exit poll respondents vote shares  were not included in the poll. Assume that Udall won 95% of the missing Blacks, and  60% of  Hispanics, Asians and Other voters.

Udall is a 49.1-47.0% winner.

CO 2014 Senate
Exit Poll 994 respondents MoE: 4.04%
Udall (D) Gardner (R) Other
White 80% 45% 50% 5%
Black 3% na na na
Hispanic 13% na na na
Asian 1% na na na
Other 3% na na na
Adj.Share 80% 45.0% 50.0% 5.0%
Recorded 100% 46.0% 48.5% 5.5%
True Share
White 80% 45% 50% 5%
Black 3% 95% 5% 0%
Hispanic 13% 60% 40% 0%
Asian 1% 60% 40% 0%
Other 3% 60% 40% 0%
True share 100% 49.1% 47.0% 4.0%
Recorded 100% 46.0% 48.5% 5.5%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 1, 2016 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

Six 2014 Governor Elections: Cumulative Vote Shares Indicate Fraud

Six 2014 Governor Elections: Cumulative Vote Shares Indicate Fraud

Richard Charnin
Dec.4, 2015
Update: Dec.7

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

View this summary spreadsheet analysis  of recent Governor elections in KY, MA, MD, IL, FL, WI . Using Cumulative Vote Shares, the focus is on the largest counties in which the change in vote share anomalies indicated fraud. The True Vote  is estimated  as the sum of the 10% cumulative precinct votes in TOP counties and the final votes in Other counties.

….. True 10% CVS….. Final Share
Group Dem Rep Other Dem Rep Other
TOP… 57.3 39.6  3.1…. 50.7 46.6 3.1
Other. 40.1 56.3 3.5 …. 40.1 56.3 3.5
Total…51.1 45.6 3.2 …. 46.9 50.1 3.0

In prior CVS analyses,  changes in cumulative vote shares in the six states were calculated from the 25%  mark to the final in ALL counties. The  average 40.7% Democratic  share  in the Other small, strongly Republican  counties declined to 37.8%.

We compare the cumulative vote shares of the TOP counties of each state at the 10% mark to the final result. The 10% mark is a reasonable estimate of the true vote as it encompasses a sufficiently large number of votes in the TOP counties such that the cumulative shares will have reached a “steady state”. We would expect little or no divergence in the trend lines from the 10% mark. But the sharp divergence favoring the GOP from the 10% mark to the final is counter-intuitive and violates the Law of Large Numbers (LLN).

10% Dem GOP Final Dem GOP
KY.. 48.2-47.7; 43.8-52.5
IL… 53.7-43.2;  46.4-50.3
FL… 50.2-46.0; 47.6-48.6
WI.. 50.5-48.2;  46.7-52.2
MD. 49.7-48.6;  47.2-51.0
MA.. 54.0-40.8; 47.4-49.3

Note the following Democratic share declines from the 10% mark in the largest counties:
KY – 15 of 15 counties (8.2% decline)
MA – 11 of 14 townships (7.7%)
MD – 10 of 10 (3.8%)
IL – 13 of 15 (9.5%)
FL – 9 of 10 (4.8%)
WI – 10 of 15 (5.8%)

The probability P that 68 of 79 Top counties would move from the Democrat to the GOP is equivalent to the probability of flipping a coin 79 times and getting 68 heads. 
 P= 6.9E-13 or 1 in 1.4 trillion

This spreadsheet contains a complete index of links to  CVS blog posts and spreadsheets as well as related CVS/True Vote analysis for all elections.

 

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 4, 2015 in 2014 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

2004 Presidential Election Fraud: Overwhelming Statistical Proof that it was Stolen

2004 Presidential Election Fraud: Overwhelming Statistical Proof that it was Stolen

Richard Charnin
Oct.30, 2015


LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

The 2004 National Exit Poll was impossible. It was forced to match the recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%) using an impossible number of returning Bush 2000 voters.  The NEP indicated that 52.6 million (43% of the 2004 electorate) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 45.3 million (37%) were returning Gore voters – an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters in 2004. Bush had just 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000, so there could not have been 52.6 million returning voters.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x2WCPJautd_eZPIfkmW9W9vD2p1Zu0ZlvgqV_gUwLNM/edit#gid=13https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&usp=sheets_web#gid=7

2004 Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded vote)

2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other Alive Turnout
DNV. 20.79 17.0% 54.0% 44.0% 2.00% - -
Gore 45.25 37.0% 90.0% 10.0% 0,00% 48.45 93%
Bush 52.59 43.0% 9.00% 91.0% 0.00% 47.93 110%
Other 3.67 3.00% 64.0% 14.0% 22.0% 3.798 97%
Total 122.3 100% 48.3% 50.7% 1.00% 100.19 94%
Votes (millions) 59.03 62.04 1.22

Note that Gore won by 544,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But he won the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5-46.3%, a 2 million vote margin. He won the aggregate of the unadjusted state exit polls by 50.8-44.4%,  a 6 million vote margin!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&usp=sheets_web#gid=4

The following analysis is additional confirmation that the election was stolen.

In the 2004 National Exit Poll, there were 13,660 respondents (51.7% said they voted for Kerry and 47.0% for Bush). Kerry led throughout the exit poll timeline, from 8349 at 4pm to the final 13660 respondents.

But the NEP was forced to match recorded vote by switching 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 respondents to Bush. The average within precinct discrepancy (WPD) was a nearly identical 6.5%. The True Vote Model indicates that Kerry had 53.6%.

There is a conflict between the unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll in which voters were asked who they voted for (Kerry had 51.7%) and the number of returning voters in the  ‘How did you vote in 2000’ crosstab (adjusted to 43% of the 2004 electorate for Bush and 37% for Gore).

Confirmation that Kerry won easily
No matter how you slice and dice the numbers, Kerry is the clear winner:

Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (13660 respondents)
Sample. Kerry Bush Other
13,660. 7,064 6,414 182
Share. 51.71% 46.95% 1.34%

Of the 13,660 (1% MoE), 3182 (2% MoE) were asked who they voted for in 2000:
1221 (38.4%) said Gore, 1257 (39.5%) Bush, 119 (3.7%) Other, 565 (18.4%) Did not vote.

Kerry had 51.7% in both the
– unadjusted National Exit Poll (13660 respondents).
– 12:22am Voted in 2000 crosstab category, assuming 38.4% of 2004 voters were returning Gore voters and 39.5% were returning Bush (as per the 3182 respondents).

But consider these returning 2000 voter scenarios:
Assuming returning 2000 voters were proportional to the…
1. 2000 Recorded vote.. Kerry had 52.4%
2. 2000 Total votes cast… Kerry had 53.1%
3. 2000 Unadjusted National Exit Poll… Kerry had 53.0%
4. 2000 True Vote: Unadjusted state exit poll aggregate… Kerry had 53.6%
(True Vote: plausible 2000 returning voter mix)
2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV.. 22.4 17.8% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore. 52.1 41.4% 91.0% 8.00% 1.0%
Bush. 47.4 37.7% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other. 3.8 3.1% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0%
Total 125.7 100% 53.6% 45.1% 1.3%
Votes Cast...... 67.36 56.67 1.71

Note: In the 2008 National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents), 4,178 were asked how they voted in 2004. The results confirmed the 5-7% Kerry margins shown above:
Kerry had 1815 (50.2%), Bush 1614 (44.6%), Other 168 (5.2%), Did not vote 581 (13.4%)

2004 National Exit Poll Timeline
Kerry led all the way at each point in the timeline- from 8,649 to 13,660 respondents.
But the National Election Pool funds the exit pollsters. The NEP did not want the public to know that Kerry won the True Vote. So they adjusted the National Exit Poll to conform to the stolen election recorded vote. The Timeline, in conjunction with the impossible number of returning 2000 Bush voters, is a powerful confirmation that the will of the voters was compromised just like it was in 2000. Bush stole both elections.

The Washington Post displayed the 2004 National Exit Poll at 12:22am. Note that returning Nader voters (3% of the 2004 electorate) are missing in the 2000 presidential vote category. Since Kerry won at least 64% of returning Nader voters, not including them in the crosstab reduced his total vote share margin from 3.7% to 1%. Was this just an oversight?

11/02/04 3:59pm, 8349 respondents
Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.0%

Click to access US2004G_3737_PRES04_NONE_H_Data-1.pdf

11/02/04 7:33pm, 11027 respondents
Kerry 50.9%; Bush 47.1%

Click to access US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

11/03/04 12:22am, 13047 respondents
Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5%

Unadjusted National Exit Poll (13660 respondents)
Data Source: Roper Center (UConn)
Sample. Kerry Bush Other
13,660. 7,064 6,414 182
Share. 51.71% 46.95% 1.34%

2000 Turnout Mix Kerry Bush Other
DNV… 23.12 18.4% 57.0% 41.0% 2.0%
Gore.. 48.25 38.4% 91.0% 8.00% 1.0%
Bush.. 49.67 39.5% 10.0% 90.0% 0.0%
Other.. 4.70 3.70% 64.0% 17.0% 19.0%
Total…100.0%…. 51.7% 46.8% 1.46%
Votes…125.7….. 65.07 58.83 1.838

Unadjusted State Exit Poll Aggregate, 76000 respondents
Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.6%
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7

Final National Exit Poll, 13660 respondents (adjusted to match the recorded vote).
Bush 50.7%; Kerry 48.3%

Click to access US2004G_3970_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

Washington Post National Exit Poll, 12:22am, 13,047 respondents
The 2000 Presidential Vote category is missing the critical 3% who were returning Nader voters. Kerry won Nader voters by 64-17%. The exit pollsters also avoided the simple math calculation for total vote shares. This table includes returning Nader voters and the vote share calculation:
Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5%; Nader 1.3%
2000 Presidential vote:
2000... Mix Kerry Bush Nader
DNV.... 0.17 0.57 0.41 0.02
Gore... 0.39 0.91 0.08 0.01
Bush... 0.41 0.10 0.90 0.00
Nader.. 0.03 0.64 0.17 0.19
Total.. 100% 51.2% 47.5% 1.3%

 

Election Fraud Polling Analysis: Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide

Introduction: To Believe Bush Won…

  1.  When Decided
  2.  Bush Approval Ratings
  3.  The Final 5 Million Recorded Votes
  4.  The Final Exit Poll: Forced to Match the Vote
  5.  Within Precinct Discrepancy
  6.  New Voters
  7.  Party ID
  8.  Gender
  9.  Implausible Gore Voter Defection
  10. Voter Turnout
  11. Urban Legend
  12. Location Size
  13. Sensitivity Analysis
  14. Did Kerry Win 360 EV?
  15. Election Simulation Analysis
  16. Exit Poll Response Optimization
  17. Florida
  18. Ohio
  19. New York

 Appendix

  1. Election Model: Nov.1 Projection
  2. Interactive Monte Carlo Simulation: Pre-election and Exit Polls
  3. 1988-2004 Election Calculator: The True Vote
  4. The 2000-2004 County Vote Database
  5. Statistics and Probability: Mathematics of Polling

         

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 30, 2015 in 2004 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Wisconsin 2010 Senate: True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote shares indicate Feingold won

Wisconsin 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin
June 16, 2011
Updated May 6,2012 to include unadjusted exit polls
Updated July 21, 2015 to include Cumulative Vote share

Charnin Website
Wisconsin blog posts

In the 2010 Wisconsin Senate race. Johnson defeated Feingold by 52-47%.

Using the 2008 Wisconsin presidential recorded vote (a conservative assumption) as a basis for returning voters, Feingold won the True Vote  by 52.0-46.9%, a 110,000 vote margin.  McCain returning voter turnout  was assumed to be 66%, compared to just 60% for Obama voters.

Cumulative Vote Shares

In Wisconsin’s 72 counties, Feingold had 51.6% at the 10% mark confirming the True Vote Model). But his share declined to 47.1% at the final. The cumulative vote shares were counter-intuitive.

In the Top 15 counties which comprised 2/3 of the total vote, Feingold had 56.3% at the 10% mark. His share declined sharply to 48.8% at the final. The trend was not plausible. Republican shares should not increase in large Urban (Democratic) counties.

In 57 small rural counties, Feingold had 42.8% which increased slightly to 43.8% at thee final. The trend was plausible. It indicates that the GOP did not steal votes in the small counties where they dominated.

It’s common sense. The GOP knows that it must steal Democratic votes in the heavily populated counties to win elections because that’s where the votes are.

There is a positive relationship (0.31 correlation) between Feingold’s cumulative vote share at the 10% mark and county vote size.  The correlation is just 0.15 at the final recorded vote. This is  another confirmation that the recorded vote is bogus.

Counties………. Votes …….. 10%……. Final (Feingold)
Top… 15…….. 1,417,248… 56.29%… 48.79%
Other 57………. 743,584… 42.82%… 43.80%
Total…………. 2,160,832… 51.65%…. 47.07% 

The sharply increasing Johnson cumulative vote share in Milwaukee and other counties defies the Law of Large Numbers.

WI 2010 Senate Exit Poll

Unadjusted exit poll are always forced to match the recorded vote. It is standard operating procedure. In order to force a match in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of Bush voters returning from the previous election.

The returning voter mix should reflect the True Vote, not the recorded vote. According to the adjusted 2010 exit poll, 49% of recorded votes were cast by returning Obama 2008 voters and 43% by McCain voters. The ratio is consistent with Obama’s 7.5% national recorded vote margin. But Obama did much better than his recorded vote indicates.

Nationally, Obama’s true 18% margin  was based on the unadjusted state exit polls (58-40%).  But he  had a  24% margin (61-37%) in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17,836 respondents).

In Wisconsin, Obama had a 56.2% recorded share but led the unadjusted Wisconsin exit poll by 63-36% (2,545 respondents; 2.4% margin of error).

There is a 97.5% probability that Obama’s true Wisconsin vote share exceeded 61%. Assuming Obama had 61%, how could Feingold have had just 47% two years later?

In the 2010 WI exit poll, vote shares were not provided for returning third party and new (DNV) voters, They represented 3% and 5% of the recorded vote, respectively. In order to match the recorded vote, Johnson needed to win these voters by an implausible 60-35%. In 2008, Obama won new voters by 71-27%; returning third party voters by 66-20%.

Note that in Oregon, Obama’s 57% recorded share was matched by Ron Wyden. Like Feingold, Wyden was a  progressive Democratic senator running for re-election.

Johnson needed an implausible 19% of Obama voters to match the recorded vote.

WI Exit Poll Party-ID  (37D-36R-27I) understated the actual Democratic  registration split (43D-41R-16I).  Johnson needed to win Independents by an implausible 56-43% to match the recorded vote.

A comparison of  demographic changes from 2004 to 2010 yields interesting results. The 2010 numbers are suspect since they are based on the the 2010 recorded vote.

Note that the exit poll was forced, as usual,to match the recorded vote:  Johnson defeated Feingold by 52- 47%.  Feingold had an implausibly low 44% of white voters and 81% of blacks. Vote shares for Latino, Asian and Others are missing. This is a “tell”. 

In the second table,  the vote shares were adjusted to plausible rates. Feingold was a very popular Democrat who must have at least tied Johnson among whites.  In addition, Democrats usually get 90-95% of blacks and 70% of other minorities. These minority vote shares were included in the second table as they should have been in the first place.

With these changes, Feingold is a 52-47% winner,  exactly reversing the recorded vote.

Final Exit Poll Mix Feingold Johnson Other
White 90% 44% 55% 1%
Black 4% 81% 14% 5%
Latino 4%
Asian 1%
Other 1%
Total 100% 42.84% 50.06% 1.10%

 

True Vote Mix Feingold Johnson Other
White 90% 49% 50% 1%
Black 4% 94% 6% 0%
Latino 4% 70% 30% 0%
Asian 1% 70% 30% 0%
Other 1% 70% 30% 0%
Total 100.0% 52.1% 47.0% 0.9%

 

 

 

 

Johnson needed 70% of voters who decided in the final week to win.

Implausible Feingold declines from 2004  to 2010:
Females: 53% > 50%
Party ID: 38R/35D > 37D/36R
Independents: 62% > 43%
Labor: 66% > 59%
Milwaukee County: 68% > 61%
Suburban/Rural: 51% > 43%

Sensitivity Analysis

Vote shares are displayed for various scenarios of a) returning Obama and McCain voter turnout and b) Feingold’s share of returning and new voters.

The True Vote Base Case analysis assumes a 1.0% annual voter mortality rate. The percentage mix of returning 2008 third-party (other) voters could not have been the 3% indicated in the WI exit poll. That would mean there were 65,000 third-party voters but there were just 44,000. Therefore, the model assigned the 1.5% excess of Other voters to New/DNV (first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2008).

Feingold was the winner in all scenarios of returning Obama and McCain voters. But it is important to keep in mind that the  WI exit poll gave Feingold just 84% of returning Obama voters. It is difficult to accept the premise that nearly one of six Obama voters defected to Johnson.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on July 23, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,