‘Berners’ take note: Stanford study finds systematic bias, probable fraud in 2016 Dem primaries

‘Berners’ take note: Stanford study finds systematic bias, probable fraud in 2016 Dem primaries

[Ed. – Interesting.  The fact that this study seems to wave aside widespread accusations about fraud committed against Hillary (i.e., in Obama’s favor) in the 2008 primaries must give one pause.  But it will still fan the flames for Bernie’s regiments.  The complete PDF of the study can be viewed here.]

Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive.

At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate?

We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. …

[W]e find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.

Continue reading →

 


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.