I’m going to address all of your arguments.
First: I thoroughly read all the articles I cited to make sure that my arguments were valid. Yes, exit polls take larger samples from less populous demographic groups, but as I wrote in the article, exit pollers adjust for demographics with response bias or lack of responses; in other words, they correct that problem. In addition, if you took larger samples from less populous demographic groups, then exit polls would theoretically be more skewed compared to the voting results towards Hillary Clinton, because Clinton is winning among minorities. Instead, they are skewed towards Sanders, indicating electoral fraud.
Second: I should have clarified that Bernie Sanders’s base tends to vote later in the day, not that they all do so. I will fix it in the article. Also, polling place “closure” was in reference to there being significantly fewer polling places in a considerable number of states, leading to longer lines. if your argument is that polling places are opening later instead of earlier, then your note about you being at your polling site at 6:30 AM is invalid, because younger voters with jobs would not be able to do so if the polling places were opening late. Thus, they would hypothetically get there when long lines have already formed, because they are leaving school and work around 5 or 6 PM.
Third: Every instance I documented is actual hacking. In addition, I cited Clint Curtis’s testimony under oath that he inadvertently helped hack voting machines to swing an election for Tom Feeney. It is fact, not innuendo.
Fourth: If you have research besides that article and can prove that the majority of people affected weren’t Sanders supporters, then I would like to read it. Because there are quotes from poll workers, canvassers, and many more voters saying that they polled their districts and they were heavily favored towards Sanders, but when voting came, the results heavily swung towards Clinton. This is extremely suspicious and needs to be investigated. Yes, Clinton supporters may have been prevented from voting, but if only Sanders supporters were affected, then it would be extremely obvious that electoral fraud occurred.
Fifth: The purging of voters happening in districts that went overall to Clinton does not disprove my point. In fact, those districts’ results could have swung for Sanders if those voters hadn’t had their registrations changed or removed. It also doesn’t discount the fact that whoever purged the voting lists could have largely targeted Sanders supporters. A hacker with a voter database would only have to target Independent voters who changed their affiliation to Democratic recently, or younger voters, the majority of which (80+%) vote for Sanders. There’s even more data that could be mined from the databases so that it would overwhelmingly affect Sanders if tampered with. Lastly, my point was that the majority of young, white voters vote for Sanders, and the commenter said that those were the people largely affected. One neighborhood going to Clinton unexpectedly doesn’t refute that.