Election Fraud likely Benefited Clinton Over Sanders - By a Lot
From the conclusion of study of the Democratic Party primary elections this year by Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, Stanford University, and Axel Geijsel, Tilurg University, The Netherlands, entitled: "Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America," dated June 7, 2016:
Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.
Essentially, Barragan and Geijsel looked at states where there was no paper voting trail (i.e., e-voting machines) and found Clinton did significantly better in those states than Sanders compared to states where a paper trail existed. They also showed that exit poll results deviated significantly from final results by a large margin in Clinton's favor. Further, discrepancies between the exit polls and final results were wider in states where there was no paper voting trail.
The authors used the 2008 primary elections as a control for this year's primaries. They found that in the 2008 primaries between Clinton and Obama there were no such voting anomalies between states with paper voting trails and and states without paper voting trails. If you're a statistician, please feel free to examine their paper at greater length.
Here's a pie chart graphic from the study that shows the differences in a way anyone can understand:
Make of this what you will.
Comments
The Clintons were tight with the Daleys
They even called it the Chicago-Little Rock Axis.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Thanks for this: I would not have seen it otherwise
To give any support to a candidate that exists because of anti-voter cheating is a mistake and goes against the values the USA professes. This looks like a reliable study.
I would like to see studies on way the exit polls seem to be accurate on the Republican side but not the Democratic side.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Lee Camp...
Has a great series on election fraud. Here's a good clip (9 min) from yesterday on the trustvote.org legal suit...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibK4de85IKw]
Thanks for this article you've posted! trustvote.org is worth a look if you haven't seen them.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Thanks for posting this.
I saw it yesterday and it's a great clip, worth a re-watch.. Lee Camp. He's damn good and getting better every day.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
As the republicans cheerfully remind us:
We live in a republic, not a democracy.
The real SparkyGump has passed. It was an honor being your human.
And As The Romans Showed Us
A Republic is but the arena from which future emperors emerge after trial by combat.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
The Romans had the same issues with the .01%
Julius Ceasar tried to be a populist which pissed off the Senate and so they killed him on the Ides of March setting off the chain of events that lead to Octavian defeating Marc Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium and making Octavian into Augustus, the first Roman emperor, and ending about 400 years of the Republic...a representative, pseudo-democracy for male citizens with a decent legal system (i.e. trial by a jury of peers). Still pretty brutal with lots of slaves and gladiators.
Beware the bullshit factories.
At least there was a little something for the foodies
I hear the bread was good.
and free for citizens.
Along with the circuses.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Exit polls were highly accurate before
We moved to electronic voting.
Democracy has been hacked
Dig within. There lies the wellspring of all good. Ever dig and it will ever flow
Marcus Aurelius
I think this indicates that with something as important as..
voting, accuracy and being able to verify said accuracy is MUCH more important than efficiency.
We need to get back to Paper Ballots. There is no logical reason why we should be doing it this way.
I never trusted the electronic voting machines because as a bit of an old hacker myself I know how easy it is to alter things like this.
We have got to stop this.
Hopefully one of the things that comes from TrustVote.org's lawsuit will be a return to paper ballots.
I also think we need UN Election monitors. The need for an outside party to monitor our elections, while sad and pathetic, is necessary has been made abundantly clear to me, and probably soon to the rest of the world.
Every year America seems to become more and more a mockery of itself. Kinda like what is going on with the Dem Party....
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
While UN election monitors would be desirable,
it can't happen until the US cleans up its election act - A LOT. The process(es) here does not meet the bottom threshold for election monitoring.
Next time the US yaps about "election fraud" occurring in some other country, the entire rest of the world should point fingers right back at the US and say "You Do It Too".
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
UN election monitors
They do, all the time. Until and if ever we finally get an honest administration, it won't happen. The top dog controls the Justice Department, the FBI, the FEC and is the leader of the party in power. I remember an old expression: "A fish rots from the head downward" or something like that.
paper ballots more accurate
Colorado turned blue after all mail-in ballots were instituted in 2013. Thank progressive Senator Angela Giron, who was recalled in pro-gun Koch-funded special election for promoting HB's hhar and SB1303, which required all mail ballots.
The Voter Access and Modernized Elections Act, http://openstates.org/co/bills/2013A/HB13-1303/
1303 also allows same day registration.
If you have any elected politicians with guts, pressure them to put in similar laws in your state. It's impossible to suppress the vote when it's done at your kitchen table, signed off on, and counted by machine by impartial city bureaucrats who are observed in the process.
The exit polls
were highly accurate for the Republican primaries.
They're still accurate on the Republican side.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Da Mare Would Be Ashamed Of His Sons
There is no question that Richard J Daley ran a closely-held kingdom. His focus was so that the entire city benefited. I lived in Chicago when young, and what I remember is when it was clear that the City needed something, he got it accomplished in short order.
His neocon sons, on the other hand, could care less about the city and more on how much they could personally benefit, or else William Daley would never have been part of the Clinton Administration or a Wall St bankster. They would obviously be tight with the Clintons with such a career path.
Chicago is but a shell of its former self, and the Daley sons are a major reason why. They seem to want to freeze the city in time as a monument to their father, blocking any and all changes that might alter or eliminate their father's greatest achievements.
Meanwhile, the streets fill with pot holes. Their father would never approve.
edit: this was to be a reply to Fri, 06/10/2016 - 6:58am — The Voice In the Wilderness. Somehow it ended up here.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
When the hell have we ever witnessed an
honest election?!
Seriously, in every election, no matter how inconsequential, you will find numerous instances of outright vote-rigging, -buying, and general ratfucking at every turn, the most common form is the mysterious (or not-so-mysterious) breakdowns in voting machines, leaving hundreds of voters to worry that they can't cast a vote or else they'll lose their jobs because of the inordinate delay.
And do I really need to bring up all the proven bugs-that-are-features inherent in the use of computerized ballot machines?
Politicians have been wiping their arses with the whole "one man one vote and every vote counts" rhetoric they spew. Turnout is merely a way to legitimize the fraud.
That it favors the big money 1% candidate over the small money 99%er is of absolutely no surprise to anyone.
Our democracy -- oh, pardon me "republic" -- has been a sham from the beginning.
Sorry, Ben. we couldn't even pick it up.
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
When have we witnessed an honest election?
FDR's and LBJ's, and they're the ones who did more for The Little People than any others, including Lincoln and Washington.
I really can't get behind this
I'm so so very sick of hearing that "nothing has changed" when my generation fucking *lived* the change.
You think that the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Social Security, Medicare--you think *any* of these things could have been passed since 1992? That's not a change?
How about the fact that people used to be able to go to school with practically no debt?
How about the fact that there used to be on-the-job training?
How about the fact that large numbers of people in the streets used to have an impact on politicians because they were afraid of losing their jobs?
How about the fact that one person with a decent job could generally afford to buy a house and raise a family?
How about the fact that Nixon had to fucking leave office because of doing something which, in retrospect, looks like kiddie play time on the corruption scale compared to what we've seen the last 16 years?
How about the fact that politicians used to be scared that 60 minutes was at their door--and not because 60 minutes had concocted a fallacious, Breitbart-style hatchet job?
Some things haven't changed. Racism, white cops murdering black people, the crappy way we treat indigenous people.
The level of fraud we've seen in the 21st century? Unprecedented.
What's most unprecedented? The way we're all just fine with it. Starting with the media, working all the way down to people who say "Well, that's just the way it is."
In the 60s, when racists murdered children, it shocked the nation. Now the press commits character assassination on the dead child to excuse the murderer, and lots of people go along with it.
The press just arbitrarily declared a candidate who hadn't clinched the nomination to be the nominee. That would never have happened before 1994. Never. Because any media organ who did that would be ridiculed and their credibility destroyed by their competitors.
Oh, that's another thing that's changed. There used to be competition of a sort, which served as a kind of lame and imperfect check on corruption. Lame and imperfect though it was, living without it is hell.
It takes a lot to make me want to give up, but this argument from progressives--which I've been hearing more and more often in the Obama era--comes pretty damned close.
If our response to corruption is to normalize it, it's over. If we rewrite history to explain to ourselves that everything was crap already always and so we haven't really lost anything but a set of illusions, then we just took a shortcut to Lewis Powell's finish line.
Tequila and beach time--except it can't be my beloved Gulf Coast, because getting in the water there is giving people a rash which is likely from the large oil spill that nobody in the media is reporting.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
#GiantMeteor2016 is sounding like a better option every day...
Preferably landing right on DC when they are all in session...
We need a complete do-over of our entire system... (Sigh)
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Tunguska-size should do it ;-)
No need to sterilize the entire planet, just a tactical strike to take out the most wretched hive of scum and villainy.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I think this is an early clip of Bernie talking about D.C. :)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0znNiN0lYAQ]
Help us Bernie Wan, you're our only hope.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
And just what do you think the biggest change has been?
Voting patterns? Or the retreat of the environmental, civil rights, women's rights, and union movements into crass electoral politics? And how do you think LGBT rights have and are being achieved? Through the ballot box? Ha! Your arguments about electoral politics crash into a smoldering heap on that shore. Every single one of those changes you mentioned was occasioned by a mass public in-the-streets and in-your-face movement demanding those changes in no uncertain terms.
We need to have those movements re-vitalize themselves. Occupy was one way forward. Black Lives Matter is another.
In other words, elections are definitely not the biggest reasons we have progressive social change. You may need both elections and mass movements to get it, but I would argue the movements are more important than the elections. Retreating into electoralism, however, is the biggest reason we have reactionary social regression. by caving in to a system that thrives on corruption from big money interests that are nearly always opposed to the kind of changes needed to favor working people, poor people, women, people of color, immigrants, LGBT people, and the environment. What legislation you get in that instance is a lot like Obamacare; a half-assed pass at progressive reform that undermines itself by leaving the big money interests in charge of implementing the reform and policing their own failures and misdeeds.
Bernie understands this. It's why he emphasizes that what's needed is not so much a candidate as a movement, and why it's important to carry that on beyond the primaries and the general election.
Oh, and as to "it's always been this way"? Ever hear of "gerrymandering"? Yeah, it's been around from the beginning.
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
I do understand your righteous anger here
But how can you possibly elide this horrific set of changes? How can you NOT see the changes that have happened between, say, 1968 and now--and between 1980 and now--and, worst of all, between 1994 and now?
What do you think the Powell memo and the invention of K St and all that shit were for, if it's "always been this way?"
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
"Make of this what you will"
There's only one conclusion. It was a rigged primary. I'd welcome any expert to explain this in another way. Krugman, Maddow, Tweety, Nate? You're such experts on everything political, please explain this. The only thing that separates us from a dictatorship is our right to vote and for that vote to be counted fairly.
BernieOrBust...
Many here may argue that the "right to vote"
has become a "privilege to put a ballot in a scanner" and then Stuff Happens.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Not even that, some places
It's a "privilege to push buttons on a black box" and then Stuff Happens.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Stuff happens = ??? . . . Profit! (for the 1%’s candidate) n/t
An old cartoon (for us science geeks)
was a blackboard equation starting out as a chemical reaction, like H+O2---->AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENS (written in a black box, how fitting)
That is a current description of magic, life, and electoral processes in the USA.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Krugman, Maddow, Tweety, Nate?
I predict crickets or outright researcher and methodology bashing.
Well, when life gives you lemons...
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt6iTwVIiMM]
So tired of hearing "You're just angry." DAMN RIGHT I'M ANGRY! Anger is a valid and logical response to unfairness!
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Anger is the proper response to unfairness.
And essays up and down the starboard side of page are trying to funnel anger into useful means forward.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
might elevate election fraud to theory
from its former position as hypothesis. Let's see the stats on exit polling variances : dems & reps.
When wealth rules, democracy dies.
Those stats exist
Here's a good round up article. I can't find the original report I read, but I'll add it if I find it.
But the long and short is that all the initial exit polls on the Republican side were within the margin of error.
On the Democratic side, something like 10+ states have been well outside the margin of error.
https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-992ad9e080f6#.m82jdrcee
They stole this election one vote, one delegate,
one precinct and one state at a time. Another reason the DP and Hillary will not get my vote.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Rodolfo Cortes is a friend
We canvassed for Bernie together.
He is one smart guy.
And IMO his study is irrefutable.
The political revolution continues
Sent you private message
Please check it out and respond asap
Thanks
Steve
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
I went state by state
and if you took the average gain of 16% more votes for Hillary in electronic ballots and switched those votes to Bernie, he gains 223 delegates.
In caucus states with no allegations of wrong doing, Hillary averaged just 31% of the vote. If you adjust Nevada and Iowa accordingly, that gains Bernie 21 more delegates.
Based upon that alone and not including all the voter suppression that occurred, Bernie would now lead 2072 to 1959, not counting California.
If you assume she stole 16% of the California vote as well, that's another 76 delegates.
Bernie won the election. It's being stolen. We can't let that happen. There's too much at stake.
^^^THIS^^^
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
HOLY SHITE!
That's incredible.
Every day my head explodes with all the wonderful information that you all are researching and sharing. Thank you everyone!
California provisional ballots. Find out if your ballot was
counted.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status
Thank you!
Mine says "received." Does anyone know if that's the same thing as "counted"?
Only minutes later, I am not in CA, but NY. I am sorry.
If you get no responses soon, put up an essay or wait for Joe's EB and ask again for CA voters. I know there are many here who at least purport to be that. And I am sure are real Californians.
In NY, my town, voting district, county went to Bernie. As did all of upstate NY, except some cities. Did my vote count? no idea. Paper ballot, through optical scanner into a Xerox box. Presumably those boxes are hauled off somewhere for some period of time. Good luck, I hope you got an I Voted sticker.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I don't think received means the same thing as counted.
I'd suggest you calling them.
In the study, AZ is listed as a "clean" state w/ a paper trail.
True for the purposes of the study, but keep in mind that AZ is by no means clean. Lines were 5 hrs long in Maricopa Cty, AZ, because there were only 60 polling sites. My daughter's usual Scottsdale polling place was moved to the Salt River Indian reservation, 4 mi away. There is no public transportation to that site.
There were also a lot of cases of people's party status being changed by ServiceArizona, the motor vehicle web site. (You can do motor vehicle business and/or register to vote there.) AZ officials said they knew that was a problem, but didn't fix it.
It recently came to light that our Sec of State did not update the election workers' manual this year, as required by AZ statute. She also failed to send out information brochures before the election, then failed to report it.
This is just one state. There are 49 others with probable irregularities.
Yeah, there are other methods
And the more methods that they use, each one can be 'proved' that "it was not enough to affect the outcome."
My partner and I were both election observers, and she went on to be a ballot counter...both of us effectively lending legitimacy to the process.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Yep, that's standard Clinton.
Break multiple laws in small ways so that each individual lawbreaking can be explained away as unimportant. Sadly, few look at the big picture to detect the massive crime that the small pieces add up to.
No good reason
There would be no good reason for any difference between states with or without a paper trail. There is no recounting coung on of paper ballots. If the intent was to hack machines, having the paper ballot trail shouldn't be much of any deterrence. It's about the same level of deterrence as there is against lighting a cigarette in the woods. Yeah, a park ranger might show up and ask you not to do that, but is the possibility of that happening going to make you wait until you get back to the city to light up?
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
Sigh... are you really this uninformed?
First of all - caucuses can't be hacked. So those states are out of the mix.
Second of all, different states have different types of voting machines, we don't have a uniform voting system. I thought you were an international lawyer, Sanders delegate for Maryland, and also for some reason at the Nevada caucuses? Shouldn't you know this?
Clinton does best where voting machines flunk hacking tests
Am I the only one who notices
that at caucuses Bernie wins 69%-31%? That's pretty telling right there. I believe that's the true representation of how this election actually went.
Bernie won this election in a landslide and are nation is being stolen right before our eyes.
Please avoid getting personal with criticisms (“you…uninformed”)
Keeping it civil? On the Internet? I know, it may seem like an unattainable ideal. But it’s still early days here at c99p, and we can at least try.
hmmm...
I don't consider accusing someone of being "uninformed" to be a personal insult. They can either defend themselves against that charge with facts, or they can't.
In all honesty Fry's comments to date seem to be rather, um, less fact-based than most I read here. And he rarely bothers to answer any follow-up questions with anything but actual insults to other commenters.
jmo
That's an interesting point.
We don't know what the study authors have decided is or is not a state with a paper trail. There are in fact voter cards in caucus states, so there is a paper trail, but it is different than in other states becuase they are hand-counted. So, there is not a machine count to begin with.
And, yes, there are different machines in different states -- some may be easier to manipualte than others -- I don't have a clue which would be...I just doubt that any were manipulated.
As for what I did in Nevada -- a week or so before the caucus, the Sanders campaign sent out an email call for attorneys, especially those who had done election/voter protection in the past, to go to Nevada. So, I responded. Nothing much in there -- nothing heroic or special, nor suspicious. It's funny that you find my "act" so tiresome, when you're the a--hole that's runnign around calling me a liar and challenging things about me personally that you have no basis whatsoever to question. YOu just don't like where I'm at politically, so you call me a liar. So, fuck you and your tired act.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
Three studies of 2016 electoral fraud
I have pulled together the three reports that bloggers have referenced for the 2016 election fraud. They are all based on after the event statistical review, are quite detailed, and include charts and graphics. I copied only the summary paragraph, so you'll have to go to the links for the whole report.
~~
by Doug Johnson Hatlem
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-ma...
~~
by Axel Geijsel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0/view?pref=2...
~~
by Spencer Gundert
https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-9...
What I have wondered
is if it is possible to rig the election, then why didn't the republicans do it? It seems that they really did not want Trump, so wouldn't they have rigged their election for Jeb or Kasich or Rubio?
On the other hand, there have been way too many inconsistancies for this all to be coincidence, and no one but the Bernie supporters seem to care.
Three hypotheses:
1 - Maybe they're too stupid and/or ignorant. They have finally disrespected science to the point that not a single tech-savvy person remains a Republican.
2 - Maybe they're afraid of Trump. If he lost and got a whiff of election fraud, he'd spend all his "billions" to mercilessly sue them into the dark ages.
3 - Maybe they're waiting until the general election, more concerned about the Repubs winning the White House and Congress than who wins the primary. The less often you do it, the lower the chance of getting caught.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Or maybe the Dems won the bid
Or maybe the Dems won the bid. (As in whoever had the most money to pay for the hack.) And then there's the power and knowledge. The only one on the right who might have had it was Jeb. He left early, tho.
Trump is not a threat to the .01%
No way, no how. He's part of the club, even if he's also a loudmouth ass. They don't like his style, but they know that at the end of the day he'll work for the oligarchy's interests, even if he's just relegated to being a loudmouth-ass-figurehead.
You're still in the wrong paradigm
You're thinking Dem vs Repugs. It stopped being that after Carter lost to Reagan. Now it's just elites.
When Bush Sr's ratings were at their highest, my friend wouldn't believe me when I told him the elites would be electing a Democrat in 92. I said it was because a Republican couldn't raise taxes and they had to fix the deficit after winning the cold war. I told him it would probably be Bill Clinton since he was the one letting the CIA use Arkansas air strips during Iran Contra to smuggle drugs into the U.S. and weapons out.
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.
Obama - another elitist pick
Clinton.
Trump is a fascist who is buddies with Michael Ledeen. If you read my Usual Suspects series you'd know that Michael Ledeen is in tight with the Bush family and is the author of "Universal Fascism".
So Trump is also the chosen one. Either way, no matter who wins, the Elites get what they want and we lose.
Oops sorry for the double post.
Editability
On this site, you can edit your comments. The recommended way is to edit the 2nd post by deleting the content and putting in a note to the effect of "[Edited: duplicate]".
Thanks!
And on the Republican side...
No sign of election fraud that I'm aware of. You would think that they would have gone even more in favor of manipulating the vote to get their preferred establishment choice at least slightly ahead of Trump, but no, Trump apparently got the nomination in a completely clean and democratically valid way. How freaking sad is that?
The don't need to manipulate
results because they don't mean to win it. I could be wrong, of course, but they're fine with Shillary, so why mess around with their primary and piss off their already pissed off base? Nope, no fraud needed for them. They either get Trump, who I'm sure they feel they can manipulate, or they get Shillary who they won't have to bother manipulating. And voila - they win either way!
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Clinton is a far more effective Republican than Bush...
Bush was just stupidly corrupt and did whatever his handlers told him to do.
Clinton wants it ALL, and she and her husband are really good at setting groundwork for Rethug political victories, all covered with a nice thin veneer of social issues and supposed "Compassion".
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Exactly. Hillary energizes
Exactly. Hillary energizes their base. Once Jeb dropped it didn't matter to them. What did matter was that they needed Hillary to win the nom. So, now that I'm typing this: what's the chance that some Repubs were behind the hacks? Maybe it wasn't us at all?
It would have been much more difficult to fudge the election for
Trump simply because of the overwhelming amount of popular support he was picking up on the right.
They sure as shit didn't want him in. but there was no feasible way to do it and have it appear as anything other than election fraud.
That's kinda what it appears happened in the Democratic Primary as well but the Clinton camp was way more brazen about it and the gaps were narrower so they thought they could pull it off.
Who knows, they still might, but I think too many people are on to the scam for it to continue for much longer.
I am eagerly awaiting some updates on that suit.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
The lawyers that is filing a RICO lawsuit said she was used.
I think there is something more sinister going on here with election fraud. I never could figure out how Rick Scott won two elections? Or even how Scott Walker beat a recall with half the state in the streets against him? This has been going on since 2000 and the same group is doing it. What is their end game? To end the world so they can go to heaven? To pass TPP so corporations can rule the world?
To be honest I don't think the DNC is organized well enough to even try this. Sanders won the primary and if this group of lawyers can get the data published so everyone can see it before the conventions they will have to give it to him.
If one could convince
all the actual feminist Hillary supporters that she was being used as a tool, would they rally to the side of the lawsuit, or would they join the faux-feminist supporters and celebrate the idea of breaking an already broken glass ceiling?
Please stop the madness.
Really. Please.
Do you think the Sanders legal team would simply have allowed fraud to occur? I was part of that effort in Nevada. I will admit that we were a very small group. less than two dozen people, all working out of Las Vegas -- and there were 118 caucus sites statewide -- so that means 100 of them weren't covered by Sanders lawyers. But, let me tell you what we did. We were there, and we went around to each precinct in our site. Besides hearing or watching many of the totals being reported, we took photographs of the final vote/delegate tally sheets. We have the records. I don't know for a fact that anyone bothered to compare them to the reported totals, but I imagine they would have. Yeah, it's only a sample of the total -- but it's an actual sample of actual totals. That compares to this garbage from the "study":
There was widely alleged fraud and voter suppression at the Nevada caucus? I was there. I didn't hear a single report of fraud or voter suppression. Who has alleged this? Where? Based on what? What sort of fraud has been alleged? What sort of voter suppression is alleged to have occurred? Near as I can guess, this study probably looks at which states generated some controversy and then glibly labels them as allegations of fraud and voter suppression. In Nevada, we had the incident with Dolores Huerta, and in Iowa there was ridiculous uproar about a half-dozen supposedly rigged coin tosses.
I remember that people went on for days about fraud in Kentucky because someone alleged they'd seen vote totals flip in one county -- one that Sanders won -- when county officials announced a problem reporting them. Mind you, given the size of the county, there's no way that any fraud there would have determined the outcome anyway, but that didn't stop the internet craziness -- 100% of which I should point out came from right-wing "news" aggregator/bullshit peddling sites shared on Facebook.
Please come back to the real world. There's real work to do. And, please don't direct to the story with the Redacted tonight video discussing a lawsuit supposedly filed by a couple of attorneys that grandiosely claim credit for preventing Karl Rove from stealing the Presidential election in 2004. Yknow what -- if they uncover any actual evidence, I'll chant their praises to the heavens. Until then, it's the rankest speculation and just makes us all look like nutters.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
Pay no attention to any allegations...
until the MSM and those responsible for burying it get through with their work.
We'll be happy to bring it up again in 20 years or so, when the statue of limitations has passed.
Until that time, let's stick to the real world, where everything is just a massive coincidence and your lying eyes deceive you until you properly gouge them out in order to properly support the party.
/snark
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Top comment dmw
Perfect summation of what I thought as I read the FF comment above it. Made me laugh. Pictures of the NV convention replayed in my mind. It's hard for the establishment media to whitewash this rigged primary when everybody gets to see it going down in real time via the internet. I'm not gouging my eyes out I need them. 'The better to see you, my dear.'
Again, you're both ordering people around and insulting them.
You don't have to agree on the issues, but could you try to be less aggressive toward the other people in the "virtual room"? No one else is using the imperative (peremptory tone) and no one else is accusing their discussion partners of "madness" etc. except you.
Please try to be more respectful of other participants. Thanks!
Yes, the Sanders legal team seems to be off their game.
Sanders wants to be a gentleman while his opponent will do literally anything to win. Maybe he just can't envision the corruption of which the system is capable. He or his staff seem woefully ignorant of issues that we are well familiar with - such as the arcane rules for independents to vote in California, which his campaign never bothered to explain to people at great length. Granted, a campaign "should" not have to not only educate voters why vote for him, but also educate them how to vote. But since voters had to tell the party "I surrender my mail-in ballot" and request a crossover ballot in order to vote, and most did not know that, he may have lost a few million votes because of these rules. So is it surprising that we might see election fraud state by state, yet he does not order his people to do anything about it? No, I don't think so.
I hope lots of election fraud investigations will proceed, lawsuits filed, and the results overturned as appropriate. If people get away with it once, they will try to get away with it again and again. If people know elections are scrutinized down to the last ballot, and effery discovered results in significant jail time, they will leave our elections alone.
It's not nutty to think there might have been fraud; given, for example, the exit polls, widely used around the world as a red flag when they substantially differ from the votes. It would only be nutty to say "We know this has happened!" when we do not yet. But equally nutty to say "Do not investigate, it's probably nothing," since if an investigation does not take place then of course we will never know.
It is SO tempting to drop that Lee Camp video onto TOP just to watch heads explode.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Please do
When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!
Ha! But then I would be evicted and unable to spike the
football if she gets indicted before Philly and/or Bern turns the supers. So I don't think today is the day I want to use up my TOP account. Still, it is tempting. And it's a very good video. I like Lee Camp usually.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Seriously? Now we're nutters for noticing exit poll discrepency?
Do you see the chart with the exit poll discrepencies above margin or error in this article?
https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-9...
Do you see further down the Republican exit polls all WITHIN margin of error?
You know exit polls are used world-wide for tracking election fraud?
Lawsuits have been filed in New York, generally people don't waste their time filing lawsuits about speculations:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/york-suit-launched-125000-denied-v...
No one is buying this pollyanna outlook. sorry.
I don't know why I'm bothering. But thanks for trying to correct the record...
fraud takes many forms
How about this from USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/20/hillary-clinton-wins-ne...
Or this from the observer
http://observer.com/2016/02/harry-reid-rushed-home-to-nevada-to-help-rig...
And then there's the convention. No fraud there? The optics are pretty fascist.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
About that back-room maneuvering...
When we landed in Vegas, the Sanders legal team shared with us how thrilled they were that the two campaigns had lobbied successfully to open up the caucus process at the hotel casinos -- to add sites and hours. Obviously, looking at the returns, it's clear that didn't work out. But the narrative that emerged in this report is a wholly false portrayal of what happened. I don't doubt that Reid helped make it happen, but the notion that it was a strategy that the Clinton campaign underhandedly used to secure the win is really headline-grabbing but not in line with actual events. Maybe, the Sanders team miscalculated, but they pushed for this.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
Just so you know, you don't represent me, and I'm one
of the 99%.
Thumb on the scale
I think Prince Harry had his finger on the scale in NV. I think that is a form of fraud. I also see the convention as a set up voting early and excluding Sanders delegates. You obviously have your view that it was a fair election. I just don't see it that way.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-shift/2016/02/buy-in-for-new-a...
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
I saw what happened too
and your narrative seems to be the only false one.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about?
What did you see?
What did I say I saw? I didn't. I reported what the campaign's lead attorneys were saying about negotiations with the casinos and the local party in the week before the caucus. I didn't claim to see anything or participate in those talks, but I was in a room that less than 2 dozen other Sanders supporters were in, so I heard information that wasn't widely shared. All I did was share that now. And, I commented that it didn't work out the way they had hoped -- it backfired.
So, what are you saying you saw, and what about "my" "narrative" is false?
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
I wouldn't assume outright fraud in NV
What I would consider is leaning on the scales, such as Reid leaning on casino bosses to allow casino workers to caucus (while getting paid by their jobs) which gave a historically favorable Clinton location an advantage (in the largest county in the state). The remainder of the sketchy behavior was exemplified in the state convention shenanigans.
There were other reports at individual caucuses, such as:
"I was at this precinct. The physical count was 33 Bernie, 21 Hillary. The Chair (a clear Hillary supporter) chose instead to count the ballot cards, which was the wrong procedure. They reported the final count as 44 Bernie, 38 Hillary. When we tried to call her out on it, she became very nasty about it, and even tried to kick my friend Rhiannon Frauenfeld out for telling her she's doing the process wrong. I am very disappointed that this is what voting procedures in Nevada has come to, where biased party members can skew the results."
https://www.facebook.com/justin.linden.3/videos/10207575747264455/
That does seem...irregular.
Counting the cards is actually the correct process, but not if there were more cards than people present. There is no absentee voting. The multiple counts seem ridiculous. I didn't witness anything like that, but even one instance is troubling.
As for the thing abou the casinos, Bernie's counsel in Nevada particpated in those discussions. The Sanders team on site portrayed that as a victory for them (they thought the union workers would support them), although it clearly didn't work out that way.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
ahem
"even one instance"?
There is video of casino workers being allowed into the caucus room to be counted at a hotel without signing-in, and after the posted cut-off time.
But I'm sure you didn't see anything like that personally, right?
Your little dance grows tiresome.
I wasn't at the casinos....
And, you haven't posted a link to such video (which I've never heard of), so I can't comment on that. I will tell you what I saw:
Where I was, the Clinton campaign had organized a lot of support -- as people began to iln up for a cacus that was supposed to begin at 12, they dropped off a crew who decorated the wall (and driveway doors) that ran the length of the block opposite the polling site. Lots of Clinton signs. I corralled some Sanders supporters to find some signs and get them up along the wall, too -- but it was a meager effort compared ot theirs. Then, they showed up with cases of water bottles (given the line was in the hot sun, I'm betting that was pretty welcome). When they rolled up with and set up a table and placed industrial kitchen sized pans stacked high with rolled tacos, I addressed the site director and convinced him he should not allow that, so those were removed. after that, it really just became a shouting match, with each side chanting for htier preferred candidate.
Meanwhile, when the check-in began, they quickly got overwhelmed. ONe of the big slow-downs was for new registrants who had to fill out forms by hand -- and the pens were disappearing. So, I hustled up a bunch of pens to facilitate that end of the process. But, they were limited by the number of laptops and but even more so by the number of check-in volunteers (as there were some extra, back-up laptops). So, I hustled up more volunteers -- three kids who were too young to vote, and a couple of Sanders fans who were there to observe. I also was able to get two more laptops.
With all that, the check-ins went well beyond 12:00, then beyond 12:30, and I started making the rounds of the precinct rooms, to let them know they needed to wait. Sometime after 1:00, we were ready to start and I passed that word, but I was in contact with volunteers at other sites that were still checking in lots of voters (I'm guessing that they didn't get the help I had arranged at my site, so they were moving much more slowly).
But no one gto in with out signing in. It wouldn't make sense to do that. If the number of votes in any precinct exceeded the number of check-ins for that caucus, that would raise serious red flags. I'm not saying it didn't happen anywhere, but that kind of allegation requires extraordinary proof.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
fascinating
You're a Sanders supporter who participated in the Nevada caucus process, and yet you've "never heard of" one of the most infamous videos made on the day of the caucus?
A video I found (again) at the top of my search results, on the very first try?
A video that was viral for days after the Nevada fiasco?
A video that was discussed on several high-traffic sites for the remainder of February and well into March?
Sorry, I'm not buying into your pathetic little Hillbot game. I've seen enough of your comments here to know what you are.
Have a great life under your bridge, Fry.
Nope. Never seen or heard of this.
As for the content of your comment... in the words of Daffy Duck, "you're desppppiccccable." Really. Get a fucking life and a fucking clue about life.
I'm happy to have to have politically heated discussions. Calling people liars and trolls says everything about you and nothing about the person you're attacking. It gives new meaning -- or, really, old meaning to being a troll. Nothing to do with fishing for a bite. So, I say to you, enjoy your life under the bridge.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
Pages