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
If you really need some proof....
Here's a video I shot at the caucus:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bhVbJT85pc]
I have others, but that's the only one I ever posted. Well, I might have posted one or two to Facebook from outside the caucus site as people lined up -- but the one above is the only I thought so cool that I actually created a youtube channel to post it in hopes it would go viral.
Don't worry -- I won't be expecting an apology. I've learned over the last year that there are some types of people who don't understand the value of that or, really, how to relate to other people online, y'know, as if they were real people instead of some digital construct in a video game.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
Jeebus.
This:
It's one thing to cite your own individual experience. It's quite another to imply you are debunking other stories simply by claiming they're either "grandiose" or making us "look like nutters."
I'm beginning to lose patience with you.
I find the exit polls' discrepancy to be worth "speculating" about and I don't think that's "rank" speculation. We've known since 2000 that our electoral technology is fucked up - nothing new there. Also, for people to have to stand in line for hours and hours just to vote is obscene and interferes with democracy. There have been a great many problems with our voting infrastructure, culminating in our corporate media declaring for Hillary en masse, even using the same language - "clinching" the nomination - for me to believe it to be anything save voter suppression.
I don't see anyone making definitive claims about rigged voting or electoral fraud. Your notion that this "rank speculation just makes us all look like nutters" makes no sense. To whom are we worrying about how we "look"?
I truly wish you'd get rid of your Daily Kos attitude when you post here. I have seen you convince absolutely no one of your stance, which should give you a clue - unless you just want to yell at people and don't really care about having real dialogue.
I have no problem with forcefully arguing against electoral fraud. I do have a problem with your conclusions that point to anyone disagreeing with you to be either grandiose or "nutters." Seriously, this is a hard enough time for all of us without this kind of aggression.
Beat in the USA.
Fair enough
It's a tough time for all of us.
I do hope that the mnoths ahead will provide time for more reasonable reflection.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
Oh fuck off!
"reasonable" reflection. Fuck you.
Please avoid this type of response. Even when a poster is being
problematic through condescension and other rhetorical devices.
To join in mudslinging just plays into an “unfairness” or victimization narrative later whereby person X can complain, “Oh, I was warned for insulting person Y, but then person Z insulted me and didn’t get a warning.” Ask yourself who benefits from that kind of barracks-lawyering and distraction?
No cussing out other posters, got it? Thanks!
Spot on, LL! And, thanks. EOM
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
any chance...
Any chance you'll be handing out 'yellow cards' for posters who consistently seem to be "problematic"?
Define "problematic"
If you're referring to me -- despite my hopes when I joined here, I seem to be out of step with the vibe here, at least judging from those who seem to be regular commenters. I'm trying to figure out if they're representative of this community or just the loud cantankerous few that tend to dominate comment threads all over the internet, basically ruining the experience for the rest of us who actually hpe to have a dialogue. If it's the former, I will be outta here in short order. If it's the latter, then I may yet find hope that there are folks who want intelligent, vigorating and elevating discussion instead of a pointless (and, I would argue, dangerous) echo chamber. Most of my comments have gotten more positive votes than negative comments, but I don't want to participate in a discussion that's so openly hostile. It's not the least bit enjoyable and it's not productive, either. So, if that's what this site is, you won't have to worry about serving up yellow cards. I'll be gone and just a bad memory of what I would say is a tiny amount of dissonance, but others might call "problematic."
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
caucus99percent is a non-partisan site...
we officially do not favor any politician or party and give allegiance to none. Commenters are free to express their opinions, as are you. Maybe you don't understand that, or refuse to. If the "vibe" here is antithetical to your viewpoint, then I'm sorry that we cannot rise to your level of "intelligent. vigorating" discourse, dissonance not withstanding.
I fully expected a yellow card, if not a red
I got called for a foul, so be it.
I came here to get away from people like you in the first place.
I sort of appreciate your response
But, it's still not entiely helpful.
Saying that "I hope the months ahead will provide time for reasonable reflection" is not condenscension or a rhetorical device. I offered it as a respectful nod to the earlier point that it's not a good time to engage in political debate right now, because we are all in the Sanders camp pretty raw right now. That includes me, along with those I was engaged with. There's no condensencion there and none implied.
I certainly appreciate that you have asked someone to leave obscenities out, but your response is a "rhetorical device" -- a back-handed slap implying my comment deserved the response. Maybe you should consider aboviding condescending rhetorical dvices.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
You were condescending, so please stop.
Just advise yourself what to do and how to feel and don't advise others. How about that?
Well...
...That would be returning to the political debate that I had just agreed is unproductive now, bcause in fact, that's not what happens here. There's also sorts of discussion that is very similar to anything I've posted, except it's meant to influence people in a different direction. Everybody else seems to be writing excoriating screeds against the Democratic party and its leadership. What people are finding objectionable is that I've written that actually we did incredibly well in running to change the Party and that it's self-defeating to break away from that effort now. People seem to find that insulting -- but frankly, none of said is particularly insulting. It's just challenging. Now, it might be not a time to advise others, but don't tell just me it's not a time to advise others. This site would have been a blank page this past week, if everyone held to that.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
And rightfully so. Get used to the reporting on the facts
and how people feel about the facts. This election was stolen in many different ways. It was not a fair and free election. The DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, political party hacks, Hillary's campaign, and the media saw to it that it was a not a fair and free election.
I've not only seen this happen in real-time but I've been "reflecting" on it for over a year. I'm not "raw." I'm realistic. I'm pragmatic.
I've been a member of the Democratic Party since I registered to vote and even worked on GOTV before "GOTV" acronym was ever created before I was old enough to vote.
For the first time in my life I am NOT, repeat: NOT voting for the Democratic Party hack candidate. AND I will be leaving the party after the convention.
Enough is enough. I'm DONE!
----------------
And no, you're wrong. You apparently know nothing about this site. You seem to want to write about a particular moment in time and at a particular place where you stood as opposed to reading and understanding the writings of experts that have studied many voting issues.
And now you're saying this based on absolutely nothing:
You're lying
Saying "reasonable" reflection is calling the other person unreasonable. since I'm near to earning a card here, let me phrase it this way: You lack male testicular fortitude in your arguments and think you're being sly. You're not. You're pretty transparent actually and your game is old and stale.
In fact....
Saying that I was hoping that the months ahead provides time for reasonable reflection is just that. I hope it does. Indeed I would say that the inteernet is full of heated discussion, emotional reactions and not well thought through appeals from supporters on both sides, as well as some, like me, who feel they are stuck in the middle. I am pledged to support Sanders for the Democratic nomination. I will do that unless he directs otherwise. I haven't given up on enacting progressive policies or even transforming the nature of the party -- but, that's me. Is that a reasonable position? Maybe. Maybe not. As I said, I'm hoping that the months ahead provide tiem for reasonable reflection. That's hard to do when everybody is shouting.
I was really taken aback a couple of days when one of Sanders' convention reps said I reminded that person of a BernieBro. The really odd thing is that my approach was pretty reasonable -- at least to me. But this person -- who shall remain nameless, because I have no interest in creating an incident or to gossip on the internet -- took it entirely wrong, misnuderstanding the entire purpose I had in saying what I had. I think that's a product of the circumstances, where things that are reasonable coming out of one person's head seem like something entirely different to someone else. This person had an expectation that I was attacking the individual as somehow insufficiently pure or pro-Bernie, when my assumption was exactly the opposite. So, it's hard to have reasonable discussion or reasonable reflection in that atmosphere.
I erred in trying to engage y'all earlier about what's next, because I don't think anyone's prepared to be reasonable now. That's what the comment to me advised -- and I was acknowledging that truth. It's a shame that you insist on continuing the accusations.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
I'm being reasonable and I can prove it in many ways.
Fair enough, I expected a red card actually
But here's the thing. He's showing exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty we saw the professional shills at TOS employ. I went back and read his history of comments here. He should be banned. The place would be better off without his style of insiduously insulting others and playing head games.
This thread is about election fraud. Couldn't be a more important conversation to derail. That's exactly what he's done.
Call a spade a spade and open your eyes to what he is and get rid of him.
My advice FWIW
Don't engage. Easier on blood pressure, etc.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Not my nature to not engage.
if you know the story of the scorpion and the frog, you'll understand.
oh,
Oh, I don't think it's a "tough time for all of us".
It appears to be a great time to be an anti-social creep on the interwebs.
I"m guessing
I'm guessing that was aimed at me.
I didn't realize that suggesting that there is value in seeing 60 million plus voters who support the liberal side on the same side in the elections -- or suggesting that the progresives that supported Sanders should stick it out because we will be in the ascendancy in years to come if we do that -- is being an anti-social creep.
Interesting. Really interesting.
Representing the 99% at the Dem Nat'l Convention in Philly.
Multiple states had verified cases of people having their
voter registrations changed w/out their knowledge or consent, essentially purging them from the party and making it impossible for them to vote.
In the old days, this would have been considered very serious and actual investigative journalism would have been done, and it would have gotten much more than the back of a judge's hand once it went to trial.
As far as I'm concerned, that's either fraud or an epidemic of computer problems in multiple states. If it's the latter, I'd expect to see the states scrambling to find out why it happened and correct it. I'd expect to see articles on it in the mainstream press.
.....crickets....
OK. It's fraud.
"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
Some people just like to stir up shit
And some feel better about themselves by being condescending to others. There are a shit ton of people like that at TOP. From popular front pagers with their fawning followers piling on, to average users. That's not even counting the paid shills.
I like that we have very few people like that here!
...we try to learn from each other not attack them...
I read through this "Please stop the madness" thread from the beginning as someone on C99 for only a few weeks after quitting several other very negative sites. I wanted to share a few of my observations with FischFry.
The C99 site, IMHO, seems to have some very informed voters. Because we all live in different states, work different hours, and get our news from different web sites or even TV, we are constantly learning from each other. Most have volunteered in their own state's caucus or primary as well.
When reporting something happening locally, we try to do it in a complete and informative (but not judgemental) tone of writing. We realize that a first hand report may seem different than a state wide aggregate report from the media. We realize that a first hand report is a microcosym of what is studied in some of the national reviews for potential voter fraud, like what Doug Johnson Hatlem did over on counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/09/hillary-clinton-versus-bernie-san...). Many bloggers also include the link to the site or video so that the reader can digest the whole piece for themselves.
We all have very strong opinions about this election, and the emotions that go with that. We are careful to temper our words to convey the intensity of our meaning, while not being insulting or condescending to other readers. We also care very much about voter fraud or suppression in this election and any other. If we can shine the light on questionable patterns here in this primary, we believe we can help future elections be more inclusive and fair.
We share information and opinions; we might attack "the system" but we don't attack each other.
Another precinct reporting
Fraud in California?
http://www.madcowprod.com/2016/06/09/hey-california-election-rigged/#mor...
Effing ridiculous
I have no words.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
disgusting
This is absolutely damning. I hope this will be peer reviewed and if it holds up, widely shared. What a joke this system has become...
“The first duty of a man is to think for himself”
Thank you!! I tried to tweet it . . . hope it works . . .
https://twitter.com/marilynhagle/status/741334382670008320
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
Thank you
very much!
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Votes remaining to be counted.
Here are the number of votes left uncounted per county in California and I imagine will be tossed in the trash. http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-primary/unproce...
From the Light House.
2 million according to Democracy Now
Nice 14 min discussion of the CA primary and election:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRKOIWiFsI]
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
California Exit Poll data - Absentee Ballots Only
https://public.tableau.com/profile/paulmitche11#!/vizhome/CapitolWeeklyD...
From the Light House.
Lawsuit Filed As Bernie Sanders Wins California By Landslide
A historic lawsuit has been filed in California after a widespread cover-up of Bernie Sanders’ landslide victory at the primary election earlier in the week. The lawsuit will require the counting of all the provisional ballots, which gives him a landslide win in the state.
http://yournewswire.com/lawsuit-filed-as-bernie-sanders-wins-california-...
From the Light House.
The graphs were fairly obvious
when you compared official numbers to exit numbers, just with absentee counts, and nothing else. It was clear there was something very irregular in the denser population districts in Southern California. Northern California looked reasonable, and I could accept those numbers.
But the real votes were down south, and that's where all the problems seemed to originate. And all the official numbers favored Hillary, which is suspicious when the whole Northern half of California was a lockdown for Sanders.
I realize there are conservative Dems in LA, but I saw the youtube videos with all those crowds down there were at the Sanders events. Hillary wasn't even close, if she was, I missed that one.
CounterPunch has the best set of essays on the election fraud
I have seen. Purged, Hacked, Switched: On Election Fraud Allegations in Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders
Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders: In-depth Report on Exit Polling and Election Fraud Allegations
These are 2 of a 6 part series. Excellent reporting.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Doug Johnson Hatlem's report
Here is another study put out on counterpunch. They only looked at votes on election day, machine versus exit polls. They didn't look at other methods of voter suppression. It is quite detailed, 7 parts altogether. I read through the whole thing; bottom line could explain up to 120 delegates. It is worth studying.
Part 1: Taking Election Fraud Allegations Seriously
Part 2: Debunking Some Election Fraud Allegations
Part 3: In-depth Report on Exit Polling and Election Fraud Allegations
An Interview With Lead Edison Exit Pollster Joe Lenski
Part 4: Purged, Hacked, Switched
Part 5: Chicago Election Official Admits “Numbers Didn’t Match”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/16/clinton-does-best-where-voting-ma...
here is link to the first one if you want to start at the beginning:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/09/hillary-clinton-versus-bernie-san...
Pages