First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply W/ VOTER FRAUD, ODDS HRC WON THE PRIMARIES IS 1 IN 77,000,000,000!
21469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 10/29/16 , edited 10/29/16
You Bernie supporters got completely screwed and cheated out of fair elections.

BERKLEY AND STANFORD STUDIES CONCLUDE THAT, WITHOUT VOTER FRAUD, THE ODDS HRC WON THE PRIMARIES IS 1 IN 77,000,000,000! “Clinton’s win was only possible through widespread vote 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.

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 Stanford 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.

In commenting on the research, Barragan stated that some of the models are rock solid and 59 years old and the results seen here have never been witnessed in non-fraudelent election during that time period.

To summarize, at least four different independent studies were conducted with various statistical models applied.

The researchers applied the different statistical models to:

Actual vote counts as they were reported
Discrepancies in polling data verse actual counts.
Various subsets of demographic polling data verse actual vote counts

The results of each study corroborated the with the results of the others and some of the researchers have review the work of the others’ and go onto to confirm the findings in those studies.

It will take months for the studies to undergo peer review.

However, all of their research statistically proved there there must of been widespread fraud to create the discrepancies in the vote counts that exist in all 3 subsets of the data analyzed.

The research of Barragan, done collaboratively with Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands.

That research corroborates independent mathematical research conducted by Richard Charnin.

Further independent research was conducted by Beth Clarkson of Berkeley who also not only corroborated the two previous studies but reviewed them and after her research was done and confirmed their results.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/top-pollsters-luntz-caddell-agree-trump-can-win-this-thing/
11273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 10/29/16
27141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/29/16 , edited 10/29/16
Maybe a source that isn't a completely uncreditable blog?

6895 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Temple of Yaoiism
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

Maybe a source that isn't a completely uncreditable blog?



To be fair the source is a Stanford study.

35341 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/29/16 , edited 10/29/16

Dogempire wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:

Maybe a source that isn't a completely uncreditable blog?



To be fair the source is a Stanford study.



http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

Yeaaah, not quite.

Also this is from June. This dude's blog is way behind.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

Maybe a source that isn't a completely uncreditable blog?



He listed like 3 different researchers by name and 2 universities, he gave sources that weren't blogs, just google them.
6895 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Temple of Yaoiism
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

runec wrote:


Dogempire wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:

Maybe a source that isn't a completely uncreditable blog?



To be fair the source is a Stanford study.



http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

Yeaaah, not quite.

Also this is from June. This dude's blog is way behind.


Fair enough, though I honestly don't even bother with the media anymore because of how biased it is anyways, so meh.
27141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/29/16 , edited 10/29/16

Punk_Mela wrote:

He listed like 3 different researchers by name and 2 universities, he gave sources that weren't blogs, just google them.


I would fail even high school English courses using sources like this. I mean look at that graph...it doesn't even have an x-axis. This is a paint job by somebody with the intellect of a middle schooler.

People c'monnnnn.

23115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Pittsburgh
Offline
Posted 10/29/16
As someone with a degree in sociology and having had work with statistics what you posted wasn't research. Whoever the hell put that together was just lying, no other way to really put it.

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

That's an assumption that doesn't seem to account for other influences, such as Bernie doing well in states with larger rural areas. Whatever independent "data" they collected, they did so in an attempt to create a narrow specific interpretation.

"Actual vote counts as they were reported
Discrepancies in polling data verse actual counts."

What "actual counts" are they even referencing here and what polling data are they pulling from? Are they saying based on third party reported headcounts at polling stations or from the actual reported results by the voting system?

As far as discrepancies, everything fell pretty much in to line with other well known data companies such as Gallup. There were no real surprises at the end, he simply lost by millions of votes. The people listed as sources in your copy pasta are two college students, one of which is from a generic college in the Netherlands, some possible organization is listed that I can't even find information on, and someone listed for reviewing the mathematical modelling that doesn't appear to have any credentials.


6895 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Temple of Yaoiism
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

Eisensonne wrote:

As someone with a degree in sociology and having had work with statistics what you posted wasn't research. Whoever the hell put that together was just lying, no other way to really put it.

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

That's an assumption that doesn't seem to account for other influences, such as Bernie doing well in states with larger rural areas. Whatever independent "data" they collected, they did so in an attempt to create a narrow specific interpretation.

"Actual vote counts as they were reported
Discrepancies in polling data verse actual counts."

What "actual counts" are they even referencing here and what polling data are they pulling from? Are they saying based on third party reported headcounts at polling stations or from the actual reported results by the voting system?

As far as discrepancies, everything fell pretty much in to line with other well known data companies such as Gallup. There were no real surprises at the end, he simply lost by millions of votes. The people listed as sources in your copy pasta are two college students, one of which is from a generic college in the Netherlands, some possible organization is listed that I can't even find information on, and someone listed for reviewing the mathematical modelling that doesn't appear to have any credentials.




Well I guess that solves that.
21469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 10/29/16 , edited 10/29/16

runec wrote:


Dogempire wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:

Maybe a source that isn't a completely uncreditable blog?



To be fair the source is a Stanford study.



http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

Yeaaah, not quite.

Also this is from June. This dude's blog is way behind.


Your questioning the source and you give me snopes. Literally anyone can post anything they want on there. No comments section for dissenting opinions just narrative.


PrinceJudar wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

He listed like 3 different researchers by name and 2 universities, he gave sources that weren't blogs, just google them.


I would fail even high school English courses using sources like this. I mean look at that graph...it doesn't even have an x-axis. This is a paint job by somebody with the intellect of a middle schooler.

People c'monnnnn.





10215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

He listed like 3 different researchers by name and 2 universities, he gave sources that weren't blogs, just google them.


I would fail even high school English courses using sources like this. I mean look at that graph...it doesn't even have an x-axis. This is a paint job by somebody with the intellect of a middle schooler.

People c'monnnnn.



Do you know what is even better? The graph is just mirrored from an x-axis on 0.5 voter share. This is about as click baity as I have seen in a while.
10215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 10/29/16
27141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/29/16 , edited 10/29/16


.....




21469 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 10/29/16

Dark_Alma wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

He listed like 3 different researchers by name and 2 universities, he gave sources that weren't blogs, just google them.


I would fail even high school English courses using sources like this. I mean look at that graph...it doesn't even have an x-axis. This is a paint job by somebody with the intellect of a middle schooler.

People c'monnnnn.



Do you know what is even better? The graph is just mirrored from an x-axis on 0.5 voter share. This is about as click baity as I have seen in a while.


You don't know how these graphs work do you. Well at least your going to go google it now to try and sound like you know how they work.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.