I have a few concerns with this post.
You talk about the exit polls being “off”. Have exit polls even been reliable enough to indicate the actual vote? I ask because after Tim Robbins went off on Twitter about this subject, The Washington Post did an analysis of it essentially saying that exit polls are usable but not reliable.
This is what the WaPo article said about exit polls:
Last week, we explained how exit polls work. In short, the pollster (Edison Media Research) conducts interviews at polling locations, collecting a ton of demographic information about voters. Since they aren’t talking to every voter, they use statistical analysis of turnout, past and present, to estimate overall patterns — including the likely winner.
This is what FiveThirtyEight said about the exit polls:
The reason it was off in New York City is because there was an overestimation of how many young voters there would be, and what percentage they would make up of the electorate. And young voters obviously went overwhelmingly for Bernie Sanders, so it tainted the sample.
Exit polls have a bias often times towards having too many young people in the sample and in this particular case, it clearly manifested itself with Bernie Sanders doing better than he eventually ended up doing.
There’s also this:
Some of these numbers are cherry picked, or wrong. The sourcing isn’t very good. So I’m not sure that this analysis really passes initial journalistic quality standards. But leaving that aside, to allege there’s a conspiracy among organizations in all 50 states to rig the election against Bernie Sanders, versus the fact that the exit polls could be systematically (statistically) biased in one direction or another?
In their podcast, FiveThirtyEight also said the exit polls on the GOP side were also off. They go on to talk how in the 2004 election, exit polls indicated that Kerry was going to win the election, when he didn’t.
So, my question is: how can you prove electoral fraud based on data that is in itself, unreliable?
Moving on to the voting machines. I recall this was a concern in 2012. 2008. 2004. 2000 (hell, remember the FL disaster?). Is it fair or even true, to blame this on Hillary, despite the fact that voting machines have been a consistent problems with elections on both parties?
In the same WaPo article I used, there was this:
I mean, voting machines are not dropped off by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the back of a U-Haul. They’re operated by cities and counties all over the place. The suggestion is, I guess, that there’s a common software system that was somehow edited? That someone snuck into the warehouses where all of these things were stored and tweaked something? Or is it that boards of elections in a dozen states agreed to lie about the results?
I also see you sourced most of your claims to Reddit, Inquistr, AnonNews, etc. If this was an election fraud, has anyone contacted the FEC or has filed a formal claim, out of social media, to authorities? I understand the need to share your point of view. But I am more concerned with the lack of proper complaints to the authorities.
I assume you also saw that both the DNC and the Clinton campaign sued the AZ state elections due the failure in how the elections went down? I assume, by your post, that you don’t trust either, but I do assume we can talk about how Arizona, a Republican controlled state, has created a bigger atmosphere of voter suppression. The DoJ is currently investigating the long lines. This was CNN’s reporting:
Maricopa County had 60 polling stations. There were at least 200 polling stations in that jurisdiction in 2012, but Republican officials said they decreased the number to save money.
Even after waiting in line for hours, some people were not allowed to vote. At least 20 Democratic voters contacted the Arizona Democratic Party to say that when they arrived at the polls, they were told that they were registered as independents and therefore unable to vote in the closed primary.
The article went on to say how this was an effect of the VRA being gutted at SCOTUS. So far, no “this is a Clinton issue”, but the bigger issue of voter suppression through Republican controlled states.
Also, did Sanders join the lawsuit? I can’t find any notice that he did but maybe someone can let me know.
I could not find any instances of voter suppression disadvantaging Hillary Clinton. Yet, it unquestionably affected Bernie Sanders.
While they have not filed complaints on Reddit, I’ve heard many Clinton supporters talk about how caucuses tend to suppress their vote as they don’t have the time that caucuses require to make the vote. Sanders has consistently been winning caucuses. But the issue benefits Sanders and I don’t see any of that in this article.
Also, a lot of that “voter suppression” comes from Independents, who aren’t allowed to vote in closed primaries. This has two sides: one, Sanders failed to inform his voter base about the rules. If he had to switch to the Democratic party to get the nomination, it’s essentially a note that his Independent supporters had to, in order to vote for the Democratic nomination. Remember, primaries are to elect the candidate that the party will nominate (by the party, I mean voters affiliated with the party). Two, Independents can still vote in the general election. Their vote isn’t being suppressed, they can still cast it. You want to see real voter suppression, just look into the incredibly ridiculous laws introduced in the South after the VRA was gutted. That is voter suppression.
I do think that there needs to be an upgrade on primaries to make voting more efficient and easier. However, this doesn’t mean that there is a conspiracy of voter fraud. Voter fraud instances are incredibly rare.
I do hope that we can discuss this without insults, but I would like to know why you left some of the information out to prove something that so far, there isn’t a massive indication of. Thank you.