RSS

Tag Archives: Trump

Syrian Sarin Gas False Flag: Selected Readings

Richard Charnin
April 16, 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

  • MIT PROFESSOR: FRAUDULENT NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON SYRIAN GAS ATTACK
    Theodore A. Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT.  His main expertise is ballistic missiles. He has a substantial background in air dispersal, including how toxic plumes move in the air. Postol has taught courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological threats – at MIT.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-15/video-tampering-evidence-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwR2F3NFFVWDExMnc/view

  • Chuck Baldwin: Donald Trump – Just Another Neocon Warmonger
    “Talk is cheap” is a phrase that politicians teach us constantly. This time the teacher is Donald Trump. Donald Trump campaigned as an outsider, someone that was not owned by the establishment, and someone who would fight the globalists and drain “the swamp.” But “talk is cheap.”

In 2013, AFTER Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was accused of using sarin gas against his own countrymen, Trump tweeted, “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.” (August 29) And, “Obama’s war in Syria has the potential to widen into a worldwide conflict.” (September 5) And, “Forget Syria and make America great again.” (September 11) And, again, “We should . . . stay out of Syria and other countries that hate us, rebuild our own country and make it strong and great again–USA!” (September 12)
http://www.rense.com/general96/trumpneowarmg.html

    •  Robert Parry: Even as The New York Times leads the charge against the Syrian government for this week’s alleged chemical attack, it is quietly retreating on its earlier certainty about the 2013 Syria-sarin case.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/06/nyt-retreats-on-2013-syria-sarin-claims/

    • Project Censored: “Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East?”

http://projectcensored.org/syria-guilty-new-evidence-ghouta-sarin-gas-attack/

New evidence shows that the Syrian government was not responsible for the August 21, 2013 sarin gas attack in Ghouta on its own people. The Syrian government was not responsible for the nerve agent attack that left hundreds of Syrians dead, contrary to what the Obama administration claimed, Seymour Hersh and others have reported. US intelligence deliberately manipulated its findings to justify a subsequent strike against Assad, whose regime is being blamed for “gassing thousands to death”.

      • Seymour Hersh:  Hillary Clinton Approved Delivering Libya’s Sarin Gas to Syrian Rebels 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-approved-delivering-libyas-sarin-gas-to-syrian-rebels-seymour-hersh/5522647     

The great investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in two previous articles in the London Review of Books («Whose Sarin?» and «The Red Line and the Rat Line») has reported that the Obama Administration falsely blamed the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for the sarin gas attack that Obama was trying to use as an excuse to invade Syria; and Hersh pointed to a report from British intelligence saying that the sarin that was used didn’t come from Assad’s stockpiles. Hersh also said that a secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad. «By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria».

    • Ron Paul: “Zero Chance” Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/ron-paul-zero-chance-assad-behind-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-likely-false-flag

Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels.  Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people”, implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.

    • Robert Parry: The U.S. government and the mainstream media rushed to judgment again, blaming the Syrian government for a new poison-gas attack and ignoring other possibilities, reports Robert Parry. 

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/

“With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.

Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war with nuclear-armed Russia.”

    • Dr. Eowyn: Three reasons why the latest Syrian chemical attack attributed to Assad is a false flag

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2017/04/07/3-reasons-why-the-latest-syrian-chemical-attack-was-a-false-flag/ Posted on by | 32 Comments

In the early morning hours of April 7, 2017, the Trump administration fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a U.S. destroyer in the Mediterranean Sea, at Shayrat Air Base in Syria which is alleged to be the location from where the Assad government, on April 4, had launched a chemical attack of sarin nerve gas which killed many civilians, including women and children, in the rebel-held town of Khan Shaykhun in Idlib province.

    • RT Documentary: BBC, CNN News Caught Staging FAKE News Chemical Attacks In Syria

http://alexanderhiggins.com/bbc-news-caught-staging-fake-news-chemical-attack-syria/

A leaked CNN video and a Truth Seeker RT documentary details the multiple times the corporate media has staged fake news to get the West into war.

    • Top Former U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials: Trump Should Rethink Syrian Escalation

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/top-former-u-s-military-intelligence-officials.html

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)*
SUBJECT: Syria: Was It Really “A Chemical Weapons Attack”?

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 9, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

SUMMARY VOTE SHARE/ ELECTORAL VOTE ANALYSIS

Richard Charnin
Dec.20, 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 won the national popular vote by 2.8 million votes.  She won California by 4.27 million, New York by 1.7 million and Illinois by 945,000 votes – a total of 6.9 million.  Her margins in these states were implausible.  Trump won the other 48 states by 4.1 million.

The 28 unadjusted state exit polls are implausible. Trump won the True Vote. He won Independents by 7.7% over Clinton. Independents outnumbered Democrats by 6.7%.

Unadjusted Exit Polls
1-Use Party-ID from the CNN exit poll (matched to reported vote).
2-Independent vote shares adjusted to match the adj. exit poll.

CNN Exit Poll (Reported Vote)
Clinton Trump Trump EV
65,719 62,890 306
48.2% 46.2% (total reported vote)
49.3% 45.2% 224 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

Unadjusted State Exit Polls (implausible)
Clinton Trump Trump EV
48.5% 44.8% 241
49.6% 43.6% 159 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

True Vote Model 1 (use state-adjusted Gallup National Party-ID)
Clinton Trump Trump EV
47.3% 46.5% 279
48.1% 45.6% 197 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

True Vote Model 2: Sensitivity Analysis (Gallup Party-ID)

Scenario 1: Undecided Voters to Trump: 50%
Clinton Trump Trump EV
45.1% 47.5% 306
45.5% 46.8% 224 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

Scenario 2: Undecided Voters to Trump: 60%
Clinton Trump Trump EV
44.7% 47.9% 313
45.0% 47.3% 231 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

Scenario 3: Undecided Voters to Trump: 70%
Clinton Trump Trump EV
44.3% 48.3% 342
44.5% 47.8% 260 (28 exit poll states)
43.7% 50.4% 82 (23 other states)

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

OHIO
Reported Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 34% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 37% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 29% 38% 52% 8% 2%
Calc 100% 43.6% 52.1% 3.1% 1.3%
Reported 99.3% 43.6% 51.7% 3.2% 0.8%
Votes 5,496 2,394 2,841 174 46
    Margin 447 8.1%  
Exit Poll Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 34% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 37% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 29% 50% 35% 8% 7%
Match 100% 47.0% 47.2% 3.1% 2.7%
Unadj.EP 100% 47.0% 47.1% 3.2% 2.7%
Votes 5,496 2,583 2,589 176 148
    Margin 5 0.1%
True Vote Gallup adj. Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 32.4% 87% 12% 0% 1%
Rep 33.4% 8% 89% 2% 1%
Ind 34.2% 38% 52% 8% 2%
TVM1 100.0% 43.9% 51.4% 3.4% 1.3%
95.1% 41.6% 46.7% 4.4% 2.4%
TVM 100% 43.6% 49.6% 4.0% 2.8%
Votes 5,496 2,396 2,729 220 152
    Margin 332 5.1%  
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 20, 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: , , , , , ,

Implausible: the IA Unadjusted Exit Poll

Richard Charnin
Nov. 15, 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

JILL STEIN HAD JUST 1% NATIONALLY? WHERE DID HER VOTES GO? ONE GUESS.

Trump won the IA exit poll by 48.0-48.1%
Trump won the recorded vote by 51.8-42.2%.
Why the 9.5% discrepancy?
It’s due to Clinton’s implausible 42-41% Independent exit poll margin.

Recorded Vote
Trump wins: 51.8-42.2% (148,,000 vote margin)
Trump won Independents: 51-35%
Party ID: 31D- 34 R- 35I

Unadjusted IA exit poll
Trump wins: 48.0-44.1% (59,000 vote margin)
Clinton won Independents: 42-41%  (implausible)
Party ID: 31D- 34R- 35I

IA True Vote Model (no change to vote shares)
Trump wins 50.2-42.4% (119,000 vote margin)
Trump wins Independents: 51-35%
Party ID: 29.7D -29.0R -41.4I (derived from Gallup)

CNN National Exit Poll (matched to the recorded vote)
Clinton wins 47.8-47.4%
Trump won Independents: 48-42%
National Party ID: 37D- 33R- 30I

True Vote National Model
Gallup Party-ID:  32D- 28R- 40I 
Before Undecided Voter Allocation (UVA)
Trump wins the popular vote: 44.4-42.9% (1.6 million vote margin)
Trump wins the recorded Electoral vote: 306-232

True Vote: After Undecided Voter Allocation
Trump wins  48.5%-44.3% (5 million vote margin)
Trump wins the  Electoral Vote: 351-187

Iowa

Unadjusted  EP Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 31% 88% 10% 1% 1%
Rep 34% 6% 90% 3% 1%
Ind 35% 42% 41% 2% 15%
Match 100% 44.0% 48.1% 2.0% 5.9%
Unadjusted 100% 44.1% 48.0% 1.8% 6.1%
Votes (000) 1,518 669 729 27 93
    Margin 59 3.9%
Reported Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 31% 88% 10% 1% 1%
Rep 34% 6% 90% 3% 1%
Ind 35% 35% 51% 5% 3%
Match 100% 41.6% 51.6% 3.1% 3.8%
Reported 100% 42.2% 51.8% 3.5% 2.5%
Votes (000) 1,518 651 799 57 11
    Margin 148 10.0%
True Vote Party-ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 29.7% 88% 10% 1% 1%
Rep 29.0% 6% 90% 3% 1%
Ind 41.4% 35% 51% 5% 3%
True Vote 100.0% 42.4% 50.2% 3.2% 4.2%
Votes (000) 1,518 643 762 49 64
    Margin 119 7.8%

Unadjusted exit polls: http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/2016-presidential-election-table/

Summary: 8  Battleground states

Unadj Exit Poll   Reported Vote   True Vote
Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump
Average 48.56% 45.64% 46.48% 49.35% 46.79% 49.47%
Diff -2.92% 2.87% 2.63%
NC * 48.6% 46.5% 46.7% 50.5% 46.6% 50.5%
NJ 59.8% 35.8% 55.0% 41.8% 50.7% 46.4%
PA * 50.5% 46.1% 47.7% 48.8% 47.7% 48.6%
MI 46.8% 46.8% 47.5% 47.8% 47.5% 47.7%
MO 42.8% 51.2% 38.0% 57.1% 47.2% 56.8%
IA 44.1% 48.0% 42.2% 51.8% 42.4% 50.2%
FL * 47.7% 46.4% 47.8% 49.1% 45.9% 47.7%
WI * 48.2% 44.3% 46.9% 47.9% 46.5% 48.0%
Unadj Exit Poll Reported Vote True Vote
% Indep Clinton  Trump Clinton Trump  Clinton Trump 
Average 46.75% 41.34% 38.31% 53.63% 34.63% 55.73%
Diff -5.41% 15.31% 21.10%
NC 44.0% 44.0% 38.5% 56.0% 36.5% 58.5%
NJ 67.0% 28.0% 51.0% 48.0% 46.0% 52.0%
PA 49.0% 45.0% 36.0% 56.0% 32.0% 62.0%
MI 31.0% 52.7% 35.0% 56.0% 33.5% 56.3%
MO 45.0% 40.0% 28.0% 62.0% 30.0% 60.0%
IA 42.0% 41.0% 35.0% 51.0% 35.0% 51.0%
FL 48.0% 43.0% 43.0% 50.0% 32.0% 53.0%
WI 48.0% 37.0% 40.0% 50.0% 32.0% 53.0%
 
4 Comments

Posted by on November 15, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , ,

Oct. 12, 2016: Online debates, focus groups and strange pre-election polls

Richard Charnin
Oct.12, 2016

Just published: 77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit 
Proving Election Fraud

Trump led 77-22% in the latest online debate polls of 4 million respondents. He had 59% in the online polls after the first debate. Clinton won the CNN “scientific” poll  of 537 respondents by 57-34%.

But the CNN poll indicated  that Trump did better than expected (Better 63%; Worse 21%; Same 15%). This confirms Trump’s 18% improvement in the online polls from the first debate.

In a CNN focus group, a participant reported: After the debate, they asked all of us in the focus group if we were decided on a candidate. Out of 28 panel members, 5 said they were decided on Clinton, 2 said they were decided on Trump, and 12 said they were going to vote 3rd party. But once they saw the response, they reshot the segment and replaced “3rd party” with “still undecided”.

The Frank Luntz focus group came up with an interesting result to the question:Who are you willing to vote for? Four Clinton voters and five undecideds switched to Trump.

Before the debate Hillary: 8: Trump: 9. After: Hillary: 4; Trump: 18

The latest NBC/WSJ Poll of 447 likely voters shows Clinton surging to an 11 point lead.But just like the other mainstream media pre-election polls, Independent Party ID percentages conflict with the Gallup Party Affiliation Survey.

Is there an NBC pollster Conflict of interest?

NBC Party ID Clinton Trump Stein Johnson
Dem 43.0% 94.0% 4.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Rep 36.0% 4.0% 80.0% 1.0% 15.0%
Ind 12.0% 35.0% 37.0% 10.0% 18.0%
Match 91.0% 46.1% 35.0% 2.0% 8.0%
Poll 92.0% 46.0% 35.0% 2.0% 9.0%

Pre-election polls ask voters whether they lean to the Democrat or the Republican. But Bernie Sanders won the vast majority of Independents who will likely  vote for  Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Estimated True Vote Model

Model Gallup Clinton Trump Stein Johnson
Dem 32.0% 80.0% 5.0% 10% 5.0%
Rep 28.0% 5.0% 85.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Ind 40.0% 20.0% 25.0% 50.0% 5.0%
VOTE 100.0% 35.0% 35.4% 24.6% 5.0%
Poll 92.0% 46.0% 35.0% 2.0% 9.0%
 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 12, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

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

2016 Election Model: Stein vs. Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Stein vs.Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson

Richard Charnin
July 27, 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

The 2016 Election Model  indicates that  Green Party candidate Jill Stein can win a fraud-free election, based on a) recent Party-ID surveys and b) primary exit poll vote shares of Independents and Democrats.

The model assumes that Stein is on the ballot in every state. Various scenarios are displayed given  Party-ID assumptions and corresponding vote shares. It is not a forecast.

Statistical  evidence  based on manipulated voter rolls (strip),  impossible exit poll discrepancies (flip) and Wikileaks DNC e-mails suggest that Sanders easily won the True Vote in the primaries. The election was stolen in every way imaginable. 

Base Case

The assumption is that Stein will win 45% of Independents, 35% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans.  This results in a 30.6% win  – and 318 electoral votes.

In 2014, the National Party ID split was: 41% Democratic, 35% Republican and 24% Independent.  In  the model, we assume the current 2016 split: 40% Independents, 32% Democratic and 28% Republicans. 

Click this link to view the Gallup poll trend in Party affiliation: http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Calculation Methodology

1-2016 state Party-ID: based on the change from 2014 National Party ID to 2016.
Example 2014 Illinois Party ID: from 47D-35R-18I  to 37D-28R-35I
2-State vote shares: apply estimated National shares to the state Party-ID  mix.
3-Electoral Vote summed for each candidate.

BASE CASE

Party-ID Pct Stein Clinton Trump Johnson
Ind 40% 45% 25% 10% 20%
Dem 32% 35% 50% 5% 10%
Repub 28% 5% 5% 75% 15%
Total 100% 30.6% 27.4% 26.6% 15.4%
Votes 129,106 39,506 35,375 34,342 19,882
Elect Vote 538 318 11 209 0

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

What if Stein’s share of Democrats and Independents varies from the base case scenario?

The tables show Stein and Trump vote shares and corresponding margins for 25 scenarios: Stein gets 31-39% of Democrats and 40-50% of Independents. The Base Case is in the central cell of each table (Stein has 30.6%).

Stein wins 13 of the 15 scenarios.

Stein % Dem
Stein % 31.0% 33.0% 35.0% 37.0% 39.0%
of Ind Stein
50% 31.3% 32.0% 32.6% 33.2% 33.9%
45% 29.3% 30.0% 30.6% 31.2% 31.9%
40% 27.3% 28.0% 28.6% 29.2% 29.9%
Trump
50% 25.9% 25.2% 24.6% 24.0% 23.3%
45% 27.9% 27.2% 26.6% 26.0% 25.3%
40% 29.9% 29.2% 28.6% 28.0% 27.3%
Stein Margin
50% 5.4% 6.7% 8.0% 9.3% 10.6%
45% 1.4% 2.7% 4.0% 5.3% 6.6%
40% -2.6% -1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 2.6%
Stein Vote Margin (000)
50% 7,023 8,676 10,328 11,981 13,634
45% 1,859 3,512 5,164 6,817 8,469
40% -3,305 -1,653 0 1,653 3,305

 

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.

In the tables, Independents range from 10-40%

A Stein share of IND greater than 100% or less than zero is impossible (na)

Stein Poll 30%
Stein%                               10% 20% 30% 40%
of Dem + Rep Stein%  of IND
0% na na 100.0% 75.0%
5% na na 88.3% 67.5%
10% na na 76.7% 60.0%
15% na na 65.0% 52.5%
Stein Poll 20%
Stein% 10% 20% 30% 40%
of Dem + Rep Stein % of IND
0% na na 66.7% 50.0%
5% na na 55.0% 42.5%
10% na 60.0% 43.3% 35.0%
15% 65.0% 40.0% 31.7% 27.5%
Stein Poll 10%
Stein% 10% 20% 30% 40%
of Dem + Rep Stein% IND
0% na 50.0% 33.3% 25.0%
5% 55.0% 30.0% 21.7% 17.5%
10% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
15% na na na 2.5%
Stein Poll 5%
Stein% 10% 20% 30% 40%
of Dem + Rep Stein% IND
0% 50.0% 25.0% 16.7% 12.5%
5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
10% na na na na
15% na na na na

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/pubchart?oid=1996781143&format=image

 

 
43 Comments

Posted by on July 27, 2016 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Sanders vs.Clinton vs. Trump

Richard Charnin
May 23, 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

2016 Preliminary Election Model: Sanders vs.Clinton vs. Trump

The Election Model estimates plausible state vote shares and calculates the electoral vote assuming a three-way race between Clinton, Sanders and Trump. It is not a forecast. It is meant to illustrate a possible scenario given certain assumptions of Party-Id and corresponding vote shares.

The model is flexible so that one easily change input vote shares and the Party-ID split. State vote shares and electoral votes are automatically calculated.

The model projects Bernie Sanders as the winner with 308 electoral votes assuming he wins 50% of Independents and 40% of Democrats. And of course, we assume a fair election and Sanders is on the ballot in all the states.

In 2014, the National Party ID split was: 41% Democrat,35% Republican and 24% Independent. Current surveys indicate that the current split is 29D-21R-50I – a sharp increase in self-identified Independents.

Methodology
1-State Party-ID is adjusted proportionate to the change in National Party ID from 2014.
For example, Illinois 2014 Party-ID (47D-35R-18I) was adjusted to 40.6D-24.8R-34.6I.
2-The input National Party-ID vote shares are applied to each state’s  Party-ID split.
3-The total Electoral vote is calculated.

Case I: Assumptions
National Party ID: 35D-25R-40I (conservative)
National vote shares:
Democrats: Sanders 40%; Clinton 50%; Trump 10%
Republicans: Sanders 5%; Clinton 10%; Trump 85%
Independents: Sanders 50%; Clinton 30%; Trump 20%

Sanders defeats Trump by 35.25-32.75%, a 4.2 million margin.
He wins the electoral vote by 308-219 EV

CASE I  Party ID Sanders Clinton Trump
Dem 35% 40% 50% 10%
Rep 25% 5% 10% 85%
Ind 40% 50% 30% 20%
Total 100% 35.25% 32.00% 32.75%
Electoral Vote 538 308 11  219

Case II: Assumptions 
National Party-ID: Dem 29D- 21R-50I.
National vote shares:
Democrats: Sanders 40%; Clinton 50%; Trump 10%
Republicans: Sanders 5%; Clinton 5%; Trump 90%
Independents: Sanders 50%; Clinton 25%; Trump 25%

Sanders defeats Trump by 37.65-34.30%, a 4.3 million margin.
He wins the electoral vote by 329-209.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 
Sanders’ vote share over a range of assumptions. He wins 10 of 12 scenarios.

2016 Estimated  
CASE II Party ID Sanders Clinton Trump
Dem 29% 40% 50% 10%
Rep 21% 5% 5% 90%
Ind 50% 50% 25% 25%
Total 100% 37.65% 28.05% 34.30%
Electoral vote 538   329 209 
Sanders% Dem  
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%  50.0%
Sanders % Ind Sanders
55% 38.7% 40.2% 41.6%  43.1%
50% 36.2% 37.65% 39.1%  40.6%
45% 33.7% 35.2% 36.6%  38.1%
Trump 
55% 33.3% 31.8% 30.4%  28.9%
50% 35.8% 34.30% 32.9%  31.4%
45% 38.3% 36.8% 35.4%  33.9%
Sanders Margin
55% 5.5% 8.4% 11.3%  14.2%
50% 0.5% 3.35% 6.3%  9.2%
45% -4.6% -1.7% 1.3%  4.2%
Sanders Margin (000)
55% 7,036 10,780 14,524  18,268
50% 581 4,325 8,069  11,813
45% -5,874 -2,130 1,614  5.358
 
30 Comments

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

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis