Odds Hillary Won w/o Widespread Election Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Researchers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Jess13, Jun 18, 2016.

  1. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    Good thing Hillary Clinton will be indicted for numerous server-related felonies, I predict Hillary is hit with a 20+ count indictment, but still it is important to expose election fraud.


    After applying various statistical models to subsets of 2016 primary voting data several academic researchers conclude Hillary Clinton’s win was only possible through widespread vote fraud.

    June 18, 2016

    http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanfor...on-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/

    Widespread allegations of election fraud and voter suppression across the United States during the 2016 Democratic Primary has sparked the interest of several academic researchers and what they discovered in their research is disturbing.

    The researchers each performed independent studies in which a few different statistical was applied to analyze various subsets of vote data and of the studies came to the same conclusion.

    Namely that Hillary’s win was could have only been possible a result of widespread election fraud.

    In fact, one of the statistical models applied by Standford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible” and that “the probability of this this happening was is 1 in 77 billion”.

    Furthermore, the researchers found that the election fraud only occurred in places where the voting machines were hackable and that did not keep an paper trail of the ballots.

    In these locations Hillary won by massive margins.

    On the other hand, in locations that were not hackable and did keep paper trails of the ballots Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton.

    Analysis also showed repeatedly irregularities and statistically impossible reverses in reported live votes in several locations across the country.

    [continue]

    http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanfor...on-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/
     
  2. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #2
    I like how this expose never once linked to any academic papers, but rather cited its sources from a bunch of oddball conspiracy theory sites.
     
  3. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #3
    My own analysis indicates that the odds that Hillary won without widespread election fraud are 1 in googolplex raised to the googolplex power.
     
  4. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #4
    So why isn't Bernie suing the **** out of her for voter fraud? That's kind of a felony, you know.
     
  5. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #5
    Why isn't Hillary in jail for having TS-SCI data on her homebrew server?
     
  6. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #6
    Cuz the FBI is still dragging their feet on the issue.

    If Sanders had reasonable suspicion to assume voter fraud, you could bet your ass he would've been up on the podium, screaming accusations, and demanding recounts.
     
  7. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #7
    Two of the researchers, including Stanford guy

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGSlRsV0IxV1ByXzQ/view

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SdmBLFW9gISaqOyyz_fATgaFupI2-n6vWx80XRGUVBo

    Election Fraud Study Authors Respond to Critics

    http://caucus99percent.com/content/election-fraud-study-authors-respond-critics

    It has not been peer-reviewed, but it will be.
     
  8. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
  9. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #9
    Snopes: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.

    ...adding, I recently saw a Harvard Study (tm) that proved Hillary Clinton once stayed in a Holiday Inn!
     
  10. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #10
    From your Snopes link:

    WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.

    WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.
    So I’ll edit my OP title:

    Odds Hillary Won w/o Widespread Election Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Researchers
     
  11. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #11
    You have more honor than some people here.

    Honestly, I don't have the time, inclination or expertise to go through the study. I am skeptical about the level of coordination required to do this, which would have to included public election officials probably county-by-county in many states - including some officials who may be elected or appointed Republicans. The sheer number of people who'd have to be in on the conspiracy make it almost impossible to believe it could pulled off, let alone remain secret.
     
  12. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #12
    It honestly doesn't add up to me. Hillary won by widely different margins and also lost states by different margins as well. If there was any fix, she wouldn't have lost in certain states that Bernie won by the margins that he did, and we should have seen more consistency in how she won (certainly we would have seen more blowouts). We didn't. None of that corresponds to the large amounts of coordination required to pull off such an endeavor without it being pretty obvious.

    THe fact that this was published without any peer review or academic review is highly suspicious. When you release a sensational headline story without these things, there is ally a reason - most likely these guys know hat their methodology isn't likely to stand up to scrutiny because its methodology is likely seriously flawed. Behavior like that is more typical of pseudo science rather than actual science. If these jokers are so confident in their claims, they would have subjected them to review and independent examination instead of rushing to the press. It's irresponsible.
     
  13. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #13
    http://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/

    The Nation hasn't endorsed Clinton; in fact, many of the things in the magazine are much closer to Sanders' worldview than Clinton's.
     
  14. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #14
    More nonsense and BS as usual. There are paper trails kept in the county I vote in. In fact, you see them and have to verify that they are okay and agree with how you voted. They literally print right in front of you.

    And, my county confirms what my social media did too....Hillary was just more popular than Bernie. Sorry. At some point you are just going to have to face that reality. Your personal Jesus couldn't walk on water like you thought he could, and there was no revolution. At least not this cycle. Maybe next time!

    image.jpeg
     
  15. DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #15
    Never trust anything you don't get a receipt for.
     
  16. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #16
    Allegedly...despite massive amounts of long since destroyed evidence, from the active organization once known as Acorn, the link to Bubba, Hillary and Hussein remains invisible.

    Voter fraud... surely you jest. :eek:
     
  17. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #17
    Post a link to the website you took the screen capture from.
     
  18. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #18
    It's the Orange County Register of voters site data. If you want to go argue with them on their data and the actual vote they are counting, they are on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/OCROV/. I think they have a Twitter page too. Have fun telling them they are wrong and that you know more from behind your computer than they do.
     
  19. Jess13, Jun 18, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #19
    I asked for the website so I could see where your information was from. Earlier today they published this, that ballots have not been all counted and I think two days ago they also said there is a recount:

    https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CAORANGE/bulletins/15038eb

    If you read the researchers’ piece, it says they were waiting for California so they did not say that California was rigged for Hillary.


    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SdmBLFW9gISaqOyyz_fATgaFupI2-n6vWx80XRGUVBo

    We know many of you have many questions, concerns, supplemental analyses, counter-analyses, and other types of feedback. Please email us. We will respond to you as soon as we are able (we have received lots of email, so this may take a while). However, our aim here is to encourage more people to be critical of “reality.” We want to encourage a free and open discussion about the potential for fraud in American elections. Also, please know that this document is a living document. The numbers are not settled - because it’s not even clear what the numbers should be and notably, we are waiting on California ballots. We will update the numbers as they become available. Please contact us if you have any questions or suggestions:​
     
  20. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #20
    There would have to be way too many people involved. Additionally there are people checking from both parties and various campaigns within the parties. If there was really election fraud, and Bernie is not contesting anything, then that would show him to not be much of a competent leader.
     
  21. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #21
    I'm not sure I'd trust a non-peer reviewed research paper by a couple grad students. I can only imagine how complex the data is that they're working with and the sources of error they need to account for. I haven't read there papers, but I'm curious to know if their methods have been tested on previous elections to verify validity. For something that will take "months of review" it sounds to me like they're really jumping the gun on releasing this. It's pretty standard for articles to be peer reviewed THEN released. And peer review is only as good as the peers reviewing it.

    Then again, remember Hillary Clinton's cattle futures scandal? She might just be very, very, very, very^(trillion) lucky.
     

Share This Page