http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
A study, which is ongoing and not yet peer reviewed, suggests there is evidence of the Democratic votes being rigged to favour Hillary Clinton. As I intensely dislike Clinton I am inclined to believe this, though it would need more explanation to show how this worked in practice. I realise there is a big suggestion of conspiracy theory. Then again, the Clintons have a despicable track record and a lot of Democratic politics is corrupt, though I am not sure if it could begin to match Republican corruption.
Originally posted by finneganAs a Bernie Sanders supporter, I still hold out some small hope that the FBI will recommend to the Justice Department an indictment of Hillary Clinton in regard to the dodgy shenanigans surrounding her use of a "home brew" Internet server during her bellicose tenure as Secretary of State. Of course, such a move by the FBI would only do any good if it were to occur before the Democratic Party's nominating convention in late July. It could (read: should) result in the collapse of all support for Clinton, giving 2nd-place finisher Sanders the nomination.
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
A study, which is ongoing and not yet peer reviewed, suggests there is evidence of the Democratic votes being rigged to favour Hillary Clinton. As I intensely dislike Clinton I am inclined to believe this, though it would need more explanation to show how this w ...[text shortened]... atic politics is corrupt, though I am not sure if it could begin to match Republican corruption.
The Clintons, however, have an uncanny ability to, well, if not circumvent scandal, then to at least slog through the mud of scandal while still standing. To be under FBI investigation used to preclude one from having any realistic chance of winning the presidential nomination of a major party. It is just astounding to me. Will the FBI recommend indictment? Seeing as the Justice Department and FBI are under the thumb of the Obama administration, I have my doubts.
Originally posted by finneganThe primary results were largely consistent with pre-vote polling (which is more accurate than exit polls anyway) and where there were major differences between the polling and results (as in the case of Michigan) they as or more often favored Sanders.
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
A study, which is ongoing and not yet peer reviewed, suggests there is evidence of the Democratic votes being rigged to favour Hillary Clinton. As I intensely dislike Clinton I am inclined to believe this, though it would need more explanation to show how this w ...[text shortened]... atic politics is corrupt, though I am not sure if it could begin to match Republican corruption.
Moreover, the margin was pretty substantial. In terms of closeness of primary results, this was only a moderately close primary season. Furthermore, where Sanders did win, it was more often in caucus states where there are fewer voters and thus more susceptibility to fraud.
If someone is out to prove election fraud, there will always be some way of twisting the numbers to support any conspiracy theory. I wasn't rooting for Hillary and I'm not planning on voting for her, but the notion that she somehow stole the nomination through voter fraud is just plain daft.
17 Jun 16
Originally posted by sh76Yeah, but does anyone think she or the DNC is above stealing the nomination through voter fraud if it could be done?
The primary results were largely consistent with pre-vote polling (which is more accurate than exit polls anyway) and where there were major differences between the polling and results (as in the case of Michigan) they as or more often favored Sanders.
Moreover, the margin was pretty substantial. In terms of closeness of primary results, this was only a mod ...[text shortened]... er, but the notion that she somehow stole the nomination through voter fraud is just plain daft.
17 Jun 16
Originally posted by sh76If people don't believe the election results then why would they believe the polls?
The primary results were largely consistent with pre-vote polling (which is more accurate than exit polls anyway) and where there were major differences between the polling and results (as in the case of Michigan) they as or more often favored Sanders.
Moreover, the margin was pretty substantial. In terms of closeness of primary results, this was only a mod ...[text shortened]... er, but the notion that she somehow stole the nomination through voter fraud is just plain daft.
18 Jun 16
Originally posted by finneganIn a country as large as the United States there will always be accusations of cheating, I'm inclined to think there is a little cheating on both sides, but not much. It's possible this Stanford study has uncovered something important. Personally I think it's impossible for either side to get away with much cheating, since things are so closely watched in a general election.
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
A study, which is ongoing and not yet peer reviewed, suggests there is evidence of the Democratic votes being rigged to favour Hillary Clinton. As I intensely dislike Clinton I am inclined to believe this, though it would need more explanation to show how this w ...[text shortened]... atic politics is corrupt, though I am not sure if it could begin to match Republican corruption.