Why it is 99.9% certain electoral fraud was committed for Hillary Clinton

[TalkingDog]

https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-992ad9e080f6#.5zyins3gi (Sorry, you'll have to copy/cut/paste the link)

When the exit polls are way off, either the polls are wrong, electoral fraud was committed, or both.

In every primary I could find data for, the Republican primaries have been almost exactly right, with every data point in the margin of error, during a more polarizing, contentious, and hard-to-predict race. Hence, this should be enough to prove my point: if exit polls were unreliable, then the Republican primaries would have equally bad exit polling data, but they don’t, not even by a long shot.

Thus, there’s a 99.9% probability that systemic electoral fraud was committed favoring Hillary Clinton. It demands an independent investigation, with the nomination results thoroughly, fairly, and properly audited.

But this isn’t the only evidence of electoral fraud…

[seabeyond]

1. Wow, lets just pull a number out of our ass, make a fabricated accusation and present it as fact.

[jeff47]

21. Yeah, it's not like the article includes any data

...oh wait...

[seabeyond]

25. 99.9% bullshit

[jeff47]

99. Again, you can dislike the claim all you want.

But your dislike of the claim does not make that data disappear.

Don't worry, you'll be saying the same things as the OP in November.

[seabeyond]

105. "99.9% certain electoral fraud was committed for Hillary Clinton" Bullshit

[LiberalArkie]

148. Kind of like when the coloreds would blame discrimination at the voting booth when they

would have to take a literacy test but whites didn't. They were asked to prove it. The fact that 0% of whites ever had to take it and 100% of blacks did have to take the test had nothing to do with it. Math doesn't work for some people.

[seabeyond]

149. No. Not kinda like.

[stevenleser]

90. Post #83 explains why this whole line of reasoning doesnt stand up. nt

[jeff47]

98. Except those reasons don't apply to the subject at hand.

For example, a large MoE means you can't trust who it says "wins" in a close race. But missing that large MoE is still a problem.

Silver is talking about not trusting exit polls in a tight race. Not having exit polls consistently miss their MoE. That is new, and is only happening on the Democratic side of exit polls. The same polls, using the same methodology, are within their MoE on the Republican side.

If exit polls are universally bad, then they should be outside the MoE for both parties. They aren't.

[rhett o rick]

29. We expect the Rich and Powerful to use their massive wealth to lie cheat and steal.

They don't like to lose. Many side with them, just like siding with the biggest bully on the playground, because they know they are most likely to win. The conservative DINO's are afraid to fight for the poor, afraid to fight for their own basic rights. Choosing instead to hide on the side of the wealthy hoping the wealthy will like them.

[seabeyond]

103. You say lie and steal and we call bullshit.

[rhett o rick]

108. The Rich and Powerful that you align with don't like to lose. But you know that. That's

why you chose their side. They will never help the poor. They get rich when we lose jobs, homes and retirements. They get rich when they have bank failures. The richer they get the poorer the 99% gets.

You have chosen to fight for the wrong side of this class war.

[Sheepshank]

117. But that doesn't include Ben and Jerry's...right?

vilifying all rich people is a pathetic over reach

[rhett o rick]

118. The exception proves the rule. But I agree not all Rich People are evil

but enough are to loot the wealth of the 99%. The Koch Bros and all the big banksters love Clinton and not because of her empathy.

[Baobab]

139. I am hardly a cheerperson for the wealthy but i would say that only a small number

of wealthy people are even remotely "evil", and its probably comparable to the number of poor people who are "evil".

small. Most people are good people. Wealthy people are lucky in that they don't have to constantly worry about money. In my opinion that is the #1 advantage of wealth and its something we should attempt to have shared among everyone in society because we've earned it.

Our work, is becoming more and more productive at an exponential rate to the point where most of us will soon be freed of it. that fact demands us all to stop arguing with one another and focus on the question, what will we do to manage our priorities in a world where nobody has to work UNLESS THEY WANT TO.

In other words, EVERYTHING IS CHANGING.

[rhett o rick]

155. I agree that there will be less and less need for workers. So what then, soylent green.

If we continue in this country like we are currently headed we will end up like Haiti.

[seabeyond]

143. "Rich and Powerful that you align with" More Bullshit. You do NOT get to define me.

[bkkyosemite]

128. And we call your bullshit bullshit.

[seabeyond]

144. You haven't said anything but throw out names at people defining them. I get to say, no.

You do not get to say no to my no. No substance, no adult conversation. You just call names and create people however you want with no responsibilities.

[scscholar]

58. So you attack him instead of the facts?

If only there was a Latin phrase for that...

[stevenleser]

91. See post #83 and educate yourself on the subject. This info is readily out there. nt

[rock]

82. seabeyond, you're a riot!

[seabeyond]

145. Ok. You know what?

I have had it up to here. I feel like we are dealing with a nation throwing a fuckin tantrum. At any point if they want a conversation in their adult voice, I am there. Just so they get practice, lol. Not cause I think minds will be changed.

[rock]

150. I believe you've hit it right on the head

I have for some time been saying the Sanders supporters don't understand the rudiments of politics. You know, like children.

[tonyt53]

151. Bingo!!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I pretend to vote anymore

Elections in the United States are no longer legitimate in my view. This started to be way obvious in 2000. This us how oligarchies work as well

[mooseprime]

10. i've been trying to think of it

as the same thing as wwf "wrestling"

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. It is treated that way

So you are correct

[Aerows]

154. "Demockery" n/t

[Phlem]

78. +1

yep.

[Trust Buster]

3. Or you just lost because Sanders didn't receive enough votes. Sour grapes.

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

48. This response isn't constructive

OP raised valid points. Why are the Democratic exit polls constantly so far off from the final results while their Republican counterparts (In a more difficult to predict and sample race) are very consistent? Andante voting should effect both, so that's not an excuse.

[Sheepshank]

119. no, the points were peppered with falsehoods. Not "valid" in this manner.

that kind of mixed message needs to be written off outright until the a poster realizes it should be responsibility of every voter not to spread lies, full and truthful facts should be presented.....and not peppered with made up shit.

[bkkyosemite]

130. LOL Chuck is reading your groups posts...he used "sour grapes today or yesterday" LOL

[all american girl]

4. I absentee voted...I don't show up in exit polls

[jeff47]

18. Are you claiming Republicans didn't?

If absentee was the problem, that would show up in the Republican data too.

[all american girl]

22. No, just stating a fact, that's all...I know nothing about the republican exit polls

Living overseas, I kind of miss out on some things.

[jeff47]

23. Hmm...if only there was an article in the OP that talked about them. (nt)

[all american girl]

24. Sorry, didn't see it...could you point me in the correct direction.

I do seem to miss out on some things...I wake up in the morning and all hell has broke loose...sometimes it takes me forever to sort out what is going on. Thanks

[stevenleser]

92. See post #83 below before you read anything else. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

102. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511864073

[Unicorn]

106. However your fact adds nothing to the actual math of comparing the exit polls.

I fully believe you that it is a fact that you voted absentee.

[Kip Humphrey]

27. incorrect. All properly conducted exit polls take absentee ballots into account.

[YouDig]

5. 99.9% huh? lol

[SFnomad]

6. Let the Rove sized Ohio meltdowns begin .... n/t

[uponit7771]

7. These type of post are scary

[leftofcool]

8. 3 million more votes and 300 more delegates. Enough said!

[dchill]

13. NOT Enough said.

You like the outcome, so you deny the evidence. The science of exit polling is real, and is used to prove election fraud everywhere - except in the USA, where we were told in 2000 that the exit polls were wrong. By Karl Rove and Fox News.

The people do not get what they vote for, they get what is decided by those who count the votes.

[leftofcool]

31. Election fraud! Election fraud! Rethugs have been harping on this for years!

[dchill]

34. No. Republicans harp on VOTER fraud. But you knew that.

Dems harp on Election Fraud. Or they should, being the party of science and evidence and truth. And suchlike.

[bkkyosemite]

132. Your last sentence says it all.

[dchill]

133. Unfortunately.

[Dustlawyer]

9. It will be ironic when they change their tune in the General after the Republican cheating machine

gets in gear! Sad but ironic.

[seabeyond]

17. We're well aware of the issue, have for years. Blaming Clinton, falsely accusing her is Bullshit.

[Dustlawyer]

135. Glad that you have investigated each allegation and made

an informed finding.

[jeff47]

20. Some cheating machines are better than others. (nt)

[LanternWaste]

84. Much as some unsupported allegations are more irrational than others.

Much as some unsupported allegations are more irrational than others. Bias can do that-- part of the human condition.

[snot]

37. TPTB don't need or want to put Trump or Cruz in office rather than Clinton.

Clinton will be more easily controlled re- the issues they care about. That's why all the fraud is happening in her favor.

The fraud always happens in favor of the person preferred by TPTB.

Imho.

[sufrommich]

11. Guy With Blog Can't Accept That His Guy Is Losing.

News at 11:00.

[randome]

42. Careful or Guy-With-Blog will write a story about YOU!

THEN YOU'LL BE SORRY!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Unicorn]

109. And what does that have to do about the actual substance of what he said?

The polls are off. Deal with it. It's called a FACT.

[sufrommich]

113. It's called a lame conspiracy theory reported as fact. nt

[LiberalFighter]

12. Sure, those exit polls also included independents that weren't eligible to vote.

[jeff47]

19. Uh...an exit poll is taken as people leave the polls.

You are arguing that people who could not vote were leaving the polls.....

You're also pretending it's impossible for the pollster to ask the voter what their political party is.

Might wanna think more about your deflection before posting it.

[JaneyVee]

39. Exit polls arent real. They gave huge sample bias.

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

49. Oh really?

Then why is it that the Republican exit polling has been so accurate? If you have any legitimate scientific evidence to support your claim then I'd love to hear it, but I'm pretty sure you're just blowing smoke.

[randome]

53. How about because Independents are largely voting for the Democratic Party?

That would be a large statistical imbalance that doesn't apply to the Republican Party.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

56. Please, get a a source for that

Because it's not true. There are huge numbers of Independents voting in the Republican nomination as well, and you saying that is a blatant lie. If you could produce a source linking higher independent turnout to exit polling discrepancies I'd love to see it and I'd admit that I'm wrong, but it doesn't exist.

[randome]

64. It's just a supposition on my part.

I have no evidence so my supposition is just as likely as yours. Yours, however, depends on thousands of polling workers being secret Clinton ninjas. You do know that totals are checked and re-checked by multiple workers, right? Are all of them working to destroy Democracy as we know it? I don't think so.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

79. Interesting leaps we're making when each new point of yours crumbles

Digital results are checked and rechecked? Really? Last I checked in many cases there isn't a paper trail to follow. You also don't know that it's takes thousands. Trust me, unlike OP I am not saying that we know that there is something going on that Clinton has directly asked for. That said, I've yet to see a real logical reason for the discrepancies, especially those coming from regions that are voted on digitally with no paper trail. And this is all in addition to clear voter suppression (Again, I am NOT point the blame here). This is the reason that I advocate for a full investigation. I'm not sure why you would be so seemingly against it either, you've yet to produce any legitimate evidence that there isn't wrong doing, or refute the significant evidence that there is to call the results into question. May I ask why you are so against it?

[randome]

120. I can't prove a negative, no.

But I'd guess that 99.9% of the discrepancies were minor and affected both candidates, as in New York.

I have no problem whatsoever with investigations but they need to be based on evidence, not something as amorphous as the exit polls being off. Nate Silver has said many times that exit polling can't be trusted. I tend to trust him. But some want to see him as part of the conspiracy, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[snowy owl]

131. Your point is valid. Problem for me is the history of fraud in elections goes waaaay back.

There's always a way to commit fraud whether by corrupt politicians as in the Daly years, hacking computers (black box voting), losing ballots (Florida I think - who took the ballot box home with her?), and voting venues staffed by people in communities who are just aren't honest. Wasn't that the case in Arizona? I can't remember.

I love absentee ballots. Okay, a few dead people vote but hardly the worst of all. There are ways to combat that if it is combat-worthy.

[randome]

152. It was the case in New York, where a GOPer was fired for kicking 125,000 voters off the rolls.

That's the more persistent danger -someone with a personal agenda. We need a hell of a lot of election system reform, especially in New York, it seems.

It's just that when adherents scream, "Hillary fraud!" every single time, the reaction tends to be like that of the herders who heard the boy cry wolf too many times.

It's just muddling the issues of something we should, by our nature, be allies in fixing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Unicorn]

111. Source?

[randome]

121. I have just as much evidence for my opinion as anyone does who thinks exit polling is reliable.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[JaneyVee]

55. Here:

https://www.quora.com/How-are-exit-polls-done-and-how-reliable-are-the-results-of-the-exit-poll

Like I said, huge sample bias.

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

62. Unfortunately you're still somehow missing the point

Your post from Quora does not explain why the Republican exit polling is accurate while the Democratic exit polling is inaccurate. That is the issue at hand, not that exit polling in general is awful. You can't logically make that case when the Republican exit polling is spot on.

[samson212]

73. Also, Quora?

Anybody can post to Quora. Maybe provide links to a reputable journalist or actual study?

[jeff47]

50. Then it would be impossible for the exit polls of Republicans to be accurate.

Yet they are. It's only exit polls of Democrats that are not accurate.

[JaneyVee]

54. Exit polls were pretty close last Super Tuesday.

And the reason Republicans are somewhat accurate is because its not even close, Trump is dominating his primary.

[jeff47]

57. Do you believe exit polls only measure the "winner"?

Exit polls also show a margin of victory, and the percentage of voters who voted for each candidate.

That is what is inaccurate in lots of exit polls of Democrats this primary. Yet the exact same exit polls are accurate when they are talking to Republicans.

That shouldn't happen. Both should be accurate, or both should be inaccurate.

[JaneyVee]

63. Yes it should happen.

Like I said, Trump is dominating. If an exit poll says Trump at 65% and Cruz at 15% its much easier to gauge the outcome of that race than a Dem race with only a 5 point spread. Read up on 'sample bias' here: https://www.quora.com/How-are-exit-polls-done-and-how-reliable-are-the-results-of-the-exit-poll

[jeff47]

65. Do you understand the concept of "margin of error"?

Because this post makes it appear you do not.

If your poll says 55% Trump 25% Cruz with a 5% MoE, and it turns out 65% Trump 15% Cruz, your poll is still wrong even though it got the right "winner". Because the results are outside the margin of error.

Again, the exit polls when talking to Republicans are within the MoE. The same exit polls, and thus the same methodology, are not within the MoE when talking to Democrats. That's a problem.

And no, throwing out random statistics terms does not explain it away.

[JaneyVee]

69. Exit polls arent real. They are invalid and have huge sample bias.

[samson212]

75. Do you really believe that?

Do you have reputable evidence? Or is it just convenient, since they imply that there is impropriety in this election?

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

66. Let us recall

That even when Trump wasn't dominating the exit polls were far more accurate of a Republican field with more candidates and much more sporadic polling overall.

[Unicorn]

124. I can only guess your nick is liberalfighter because you fight liberals.

[Baitball Blogger]

14. The most troubling aspect of our political process is that there are literally millions of

little minions in the local and state corridors who are ready to prove their loyalty, knowing that somewhere down the line they will be rewarded for their unethical and criminal actions.

[yourpaljoey]

26. ain't that crazy, tho? sheep all layered up to defraud the public

[randome]

43. "Millions of little minions". Is that like binders full of women?

Good God, how do you walk around with the weight of all that paranoia in you?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Baitball Blogger]

97. Reality bites.

Local corruption is a very big part of life in a red county.

[Unicorn]

114. We all lose by their unethical actions. I don't like Trump but I wouldn't ignore election

fraud if it were happening to him.

These Hillary supporters sure are a piece of work.

I guess that's why they're supporting the bought out corporatist, in the first place.

[Baitball Blogger]

116. Seriously. Anyone who is not willing to accept that corruption moves

smoothly on a local and state level, has no idea what the environment is like in burby counties where small government types and neo-liberals find common ground in their business circles.

[BootinUp]

15. Hillary has been the almost sure winner since before any vote was cast based on

any kind of factual analysis that was written. But convincing people to lay aside conspiratorial beliefs is pretty much always a fruitless venture so I will try to resist.

[B Calm]

16. Before the first vote was cast in Iowa, Hillary had a 500 super delegate lead.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3295202/No-wonder-Hillary-thinks-inevitable-votes-500-Democratic-establishment-superdelegates-locked-up.html

[leftofcool]

32. Yes she did. Super delegates chose her over Bernie and still do.

[byyiminy]

123. Not anymore.

Trust me, at the end, the superdelegates will drop her like a bad habit.

[apcalc]

129. Um......

No

[tonyt53]

28. Got some sad news for ya

If that 126,000 voters in NY had voted, her win margin would have been larger. The area that happened in went to her by about 65%. she would have beaten Bernie by even more and would have picked up another delegate. Be careful what you wish for.

[samson212]

61. You're assuming there was no fraud

and discounting voters out of hand. Of course that area went to her by a wide margin -- voters were systematically disenfranchised. Besides the obvious fact that their rights were violated, aren't you curious how those voters would have voted, had they not been disenfranchised? Coupled with the fact that exit polls had the result at 52-48 (indicating that there was fraud), it seems plausible to me to suspect that a large majority of those voters who were removed from the rolls would have voted for Bernie. We're talking about fraud here, not clerical error! Here's a quote from the article that says it better than I can:

126,000 voters were purged from Democratic registration lists in Brooklyn, with one commenter noting, “Is it just a coincidence that the area with the highest numbers of purged voters happens to be an area with high numbers of young, white, educated, liberals [Bernie’s base of supporters]?” ... This is undeniably voter suppression.

[20score]

96. WTF? Did you read the article, or are you trying to equal

the War on Christmas, for logic and relevance?

[Lil Missy]

30. Sour Grapes

[Unicorn]

112. No election disparties shown with FACTS. Deal with it.

[Lil Missy]

146. it's not the Hillary supporters that are having trouble dealing with facts

*Ahem! *

Bernie Is losing. That is a fact. no degree of mud flinging is going to change that.

[writes3000]

33. This is ridiculous, wishful thinking. Here's an explanation...Sanders voters

Think they're a part of a cause. They are more likely to wear pins. Seek attention. And boast about their vote. When exit poll workers are trying to get people to talk to them about their vote, Sanders voters are more likely to want to talk.

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

52. It's that simple then?

Why have the Republican exit polls been so accurate and consistent? Why aren't vocal Trump supporters being over-sampled? Do you really think these workers don't seek out a legitimate sample representative of the population?

I too would like to find a logical answer, and if Republican exit polling weren't available to compare from the same agencies I'd probably feel the way that you do. The fact is (And we are the party of fact and reason) that the exit polling is inconsistent and there is not an obvious reason for this, therefore it should be investigated.

[Scuba]

35. She sure as hell can't win on policy.

[AgingAmerican]

36. And she knows it. That's why they spent a million buying troll support

[JaneyVee]

38. Exit polls arent real. They are invalid and have huge sample bias.

They only work kind of for demographic breakdown.

[samson212]

76. Why do you keep saying this? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE??? nt

[stevenleser]

89. See post #83, this has been posted here on DU dozens of times over the years.

If you are making the accusation, or deciding to support the accusation, its your responsibility to be informed. This kind of information from Nate and others is readily available out there.

[Blue_Adept]

40. Jury Results

On Fri Apr 29, 2016, 11:14 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why it is 99.9% certain electoral fraud was committed for Hillary Clinton
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511864073

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is direct violation of the TOS. It is an over the top criticism of a democrat that is not in any way substantiated.Please don't use the free speech issue as this place has rules and is not run by the government. Please enforce the rules as that is the job of the juror. The article it leads to is speculative and not a journalistic or legitimate media resource.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 29, 2016, 11:25 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster gives information that may/may not be accurate. He/she may be wrong, but it is his/her POV
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: tired of OPs that start off with outright falsehoods.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Advanced Bernie Math to accuse a candidate of electoral voter fraud :/
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[senz]

41. It must be investigated -- if America still stands for democracy.

Those who want to sweep it under the rug don't even deserve to live here.

[senz]

44. Here's an analysis of exit polling in the NY Dem primary --

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/ny-democratic-primary-more-frustration/

[randome]

46. This bullshit again. From another Guy-With-Blog.

Totals change because sometimes a precinct sends totals into the wrong bucket! In case you haven't been paying attention, this is the Digital Age and it's easy as hell to make a mistake. Also easy as hell to learn of said mistake and change it.

If Clinton is this evil mastermind intent on ruling the world, why does she leave such a trail of breadcrumbs for the paranoid to follow?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[senz]

47. Here, this one is its own webpage -- a collection of dirty deeds from 2016 Dem primaries

Good lord, just think of all the investigations your candidate's lawless behavior elicits.

Should keep you busy defending defending defending.

[randome]

51. If you're talking about the link in post #45, it's just more of the same.

One article starts off with, "In what is becoming an outrageously predictable trend, Hillary Clinton supporters have been caught breaking election laws again." Any article that judges a candidate's supporters guilty without offering a shred of proof exists only to feed the paranoia to the Sanders fanatics.

Are we really supposed to make the assumption that every precinct in every state is stacked with loyal Clinton cheaters? That's like believing that Assange is being unfairly prosecuted because Sweden, the U.K., the U.S., Australia and Interpol all are cooperating in the conspiracy.

There are voting problems in every precinct in every election. It's not difficult to understand why: too many people and too many moving pieces to coordinate. I have no doubt these same type of irregularities occurred in the last election. And the one before that. And so on and so on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[senz]

60. And then, of course, we have state authorities calling for investigations.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/politics/new-york-primary-voter-problem-polls-sanders-de-blasio/

[randome]

67. Damned straight. And the person responsible for that was ousted, I believe.

But that wasn't a Clinton plot, it was a GOPer gone rogue. Good thing the audit revealed the culprit. And New York's election problems need a complete overhaul. Hasn't de Blasio offered some millions of dollars for that purpose? We need a lot more election reform across the board -a month, at least, for Presidential elections. Greater access to mail-in ballots. Maybe a tax incentive to states for them to drop their onerous voting restrictions.

There is a lot that remains to be done.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[senz]

70. There are other state investigations and you know it.

Cover up, cover up, hide, hide.

It will come out. Justice will be done.

[senz]

45. Another good site that includes the above exit polling study --

https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/

Bookmark these, TalkingDog.

[felix_numinous]

59. Great work

this election and the internet have been hacked to force their way into the WH. It is an unprecedented criminal act and must be stopped.

[nemo137]

68. How have past D primary exit polls been?

And how are provisional ballots figured in to exit polls? Are they asked about? We had trouble with people apparently being given provisional ballots when they should not have been given them in IL.

[nolawarlock]

71. Will these conspiracy theories never stop?

Someone already ate the finch, for heaven's sake. These theories are getting desperate.

[randome]

72. "Someone already ate the finch".

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[nolawarlock]

74. Thanks!

I'll be here all week!

[athena]

77. When I saw the title of the OP, I thought the OP would actually present some evidence.

Sadly, I was mistaken.

Exit polls are notoriously inaccurate. They always have been, and they always will be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/upshot/exit-polls-why-they-so-often-mislead.html

The problems begin early on election evening, when the first waves of exit polls are invariably leaked and invariably show a surprising result somewhere. You’re best off ignoring these early returns, which are unweighted — meaning the demographic mix of the respondents is not adjusted to match any expectations for the composition of the electorate. The first waves also don’t even include all of the exit poll interviews.

The problems continue with the final waves, which analysts pore over in the days after the election and treat as a definitive account of the composition of the electorate. Some foolish journalists might write entire posts that assume that the black share of the electorate was 15 percent in Ohio. In reality, the exit polls just aren’t precise enough to justify making distinctions between an electorate that’s 15 percent black and, say, 13 percent black.

...

How can the exit polls be off by so much? The biggest thing to remember is that they’re just polls! They’re usually based on a sample of a few dozen precincts or so in a state, sometimes not even including many more than 1,000 respondents. Like every other type of survey, they’re subject to a margin of error because of sampling and additional error resulting from various forms of response bias.

Increasingly, the exit polls aren’t even distinct from normal telephone polls, since they’re using telephone surveys to sample early and absentee voters, who represent more than a third of the electorate in most of this year’s core battleground states. Unlike traditional media polls, which are weighted to various census targets, the exit polls aren’t weighted until far later in the evening — when they get weighted to actual voting results.

Emphases mine.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

80. NO, they havent always been. Exit polls were always quite accurate until the stolen election

of 2000 and the GOP efforts.

What happened here I dont know, but the only reason exit polls are now inaccurate is because the GOP routinely steals votes.

[athena]

94. You didn't read the article, did you?

It's always obvious that a poster did not bother to click the link when they make an argument that is actually disproved in the article linked.

[Unicorn]

126. I don't think any one person can prove or disprove it. Every state is different.

Election fraud goes all ways.

Exit polls are one of the best ways to tell.

[brooklynite]

81. You should pass this on to Bernie Sanders...I'm sure he'll leap right on it, right?

[brooklynite]

83. Nate Silver: Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls

1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.

2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote. Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had. But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back and watch The War Room, you’ll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and Texas, which of course he did not win.

3. Exit polls were particularly bad in this year’s primaries. They overstated Barack Obama’s performance by an average of about 7 points.

4. Exit polls challenge the definition of a random sample. Although the exit polls have theoretically established procedures to collect a random sample — essentially, having the interviewer approach every nth person who leaves the polling place — in practice this is hard to execute at a busy polling place, particularly when the pollster may be standing many yards away from the polling place itself because of electioneering laws.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/

[BootinUp]

86. a very relevant and informative post. Thanks.

[mcar]

93. +1

[jeff47]

100. Except if these was the explanation, it would be happening to both parties.

Those reasons apply to both political parties. Not just Democrats.

Republican exit polls are consistently within the MoE. Democratic exit polls are consistently not within the MoE. Even when it's the same poll, and so they are using the same methodology.

[Adrahil]

142. Not necessarily.

The Exit pollsters build population models that are used to calibrate the collected data. The model could be CORRECT (or closer to correct) for Republicans, while the Democratic model is incorrect. Keep in mind that the Margin of Error does NOT take into account modelling errors. It can't. This is why exit pollsters use actual results to "reclaibrate" exit poll results so that the demographic information is more usefule (although STILL subject to error).

I worked doing exit poll interviews during college, and there are other factors Nate doesn't cover. In my experience, for example, a lot of black voters in a poor precinct are reluctant to tell a white middle-class kid who they voted for. The white voters were not as resistant. In wealthier precincts, EVERYBODY wants to tell you who they voted for.

[Baobab]

137. #2 could be because their is consistently election fraud favoring Republicans

The situation with the touch screen, hackable voting machines makes that not impossible or perhaps even improbable.


https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evtwote09/tech/full_papers/appel.pdf

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Americas_Voting_Machines_At_Risk.pdf

[workinclasszero]

85. What a joke

[20score]

107. That was the worst evidence, proving a point of view I have ever seen.

As a science professor, I hope you can do better. Much better.

The 99.9% was never proven, no percentage was, but the overall anomalies definitely were.

I hope you can do better than, nuh-uh!

[bkkyosemite]

136. If those vote machines are coded to flip votes to the opposite percentages yes it is possible

to rack up millions of votes.... millions have voted and flipping the majority of those votes (by privately controlled vote machines) to the other side is absolutely possible. Soros is connected to the codes (him and his daughter) and those codes in 60 seconds can flip the votes after the voters have voted. So if Bernie had the 3 million ahead and all his were flipped with her lower count that is possible. And it is and was happening.

[20score]

138. That was a truly moronic statement, on so many levels.

Votes prove there is no election fraud? Wtf! Forget about discounting all caucus states, which alone proves you know nothing deeper than a talking point, that statement is still as ridiculous as anything I have heard on Fox.

Look,if you don't understand what you're talking about...don't talk about it.

Millions of votes weren't stolen in one grasp, this was done state by state, little by little, with much of it,like in Arizona, out in the open, then ignored.

No good citizen or person should be okay with this. If Sanders were cheating to win, I would be just as angry and he would lose my support. This cheating, and that's what this is, shines a light, not only on her character, but on the character of her supporters. At the very least they should be calling for an investigation.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

88. So whoever cheats more, Hillary or the Republicans, wins the prize.

[EndElectoral]

95. I would like an explanation why how suddenly since computer voting machines exit polls are now off!

[fun n serious]

101. Caucasus have to go too

They're vulnerable to corruption.

[Unicorn]

127. Open primary's need to come.

That makes many of the voter suppression tactics go away.

As far as voting machines, we need a national system and not to be trusting the machines in the hands of partisan election officials.

[jamese777]

140. Completely wrong

General elections are "open" and there have been charges of voter fraud in general elections since the beginning of the republic.
The main problem with open primary elections as the ONLY way to choose a party's candidate is that they are subject to mischief from members of the opposition party who have no competitive candidates in their primary, so they vote in the opposition's primary to intentionally screw up the results. Primary voting by people who would NEVER vote for a candidate in the general election is devious. Imagine large numbers of Republicans who are dedicated to Trump voting for Clinton in a Democratic primary because they think she will be easier to defeat in November than Sanders.
Both major parties like having a mix of open primaries, closed primaries, caucuses and hybrids. That mix gives the party the best opportunity to select a candidate with the strongest and broadest appeal. I don't expect that to change any time soon.

[Sheepshank]

110. I'm pretty sure this is first election ever that exit polls have been off like in Michigan

[JSup]

115. I address this in another thread

Things I hadn't quoted yet:

I decided to do a bit of reporting, and I ended up chasing this Facebook meme down a rabbit-hole of misinformation and conspiracism. It offers a pretty good case-study of how bullshit can come to dominate our online discourse.

The meme was created by Lee Camp, a political comedian who hosts a weekly show on RT, the Russian foreign news network. It has over 2,000 shares on Facebook as of this writing.

Via email, I asked Camp for his source, and he pointed me to a post on Reddit by a user who goes by the handle “turn-trout.” Turn-trout, who didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, claims that these are unadjusted exit polls, and links to a spreadsheet purportedly showing wide discrepancies between the raw data and the final results.

The spreadsheet was created by Richard Charnin, who writes a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s spreadsheet appears to be the basis of a broad swath of viral Internet content alleging widespread election theft during the 2016 primaries, including the work of Free Press editors Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis. Charnin seems to think that exit polls can reveal that virtually all our elections have been rigged, writing, “in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1865485

[snowy owl]

134. Shows you can make a case for anything. Creativity abounds.

Polls used to be really good reflectors of how people vote. Now with absentee ballots and so much crossover, they really don't work as well now. Having said that, I always believed the polls in 2000 pointed to a corrupt election and they did.

[Beacool]

141. Sure, whatever gets you through the day.

The reality is that Hillary is winning because more registered Democrats are voting for her than for Sanders.

It's not that complicated.

[pnwmom]

147. Hillary drew much of her support from older voters who were much more likely to vote absentee.

Absentee voters aren't interviewed in exit polls.

There was no "age gap" in the Rethug primary, so the disparity between exit polls and actual results didn't happen there.

[tonyt53]

153. People over 50 vote reliably