Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

[Surrealistik]

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

More a confirmation of evidence very strongly implying election fraud, but damning (and unsurprising) nonetheless.

 

[Moot]

Gee, they only examined the exit polls. Never mind, the millions that voted by mail and early voters.

I've never seen such a lame study. Stanford, huh?

 

[Hatuey]

The conclusion reduced:

States where it's hard to verify information, Clinton wins. In states where it isn't, Sanders wins. How is this possible? Fraud. How do we know? We compared it to another election year. Oh, and we got our data from some expert we didn't bother to mention.

Lmao... this OP is a joke if I have ever seen one.

 

[Hatuey]

Gee, they only examined the exit polls. Never mind, the millions that voted by mail and early voters.

I've never seen such a lame study. Stanford, huh?

Stanford University apparently has lower formatting standards than DP's conspiracy theorist subforum.

Oh, by the way:

View attachment 67202931
View attachment 67202932
View attachment 67202933

This website sounds like a bastion of reliability.

 

[Moot]

Stanford University apparently has lower formatting standards than DP's conspiracy theorist subforum.

Oh, by the way:

View attachment 67202931
View attachment 67202932
View attachment 67202933

This website sounds like a bastion of reliability.

Too funny. LOL

Here's one that's news worthy....

"Fox News Reporter Shows Viewers Her Underwear By Accident"

Now that's what I call: News. Truth. Unfilterd.

 

[Redress]

Stanford University apparently has lower formatting standards than DP's conspiracy theorist subforum.

Oh, by the way:
This website sounds like a bastion of reliability.

Here is a classic from them: FBI: Hitler Didn’t Die, Fled To Argentina – Stunning Admission | Your News Wire

 

[Redress]

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

More a confirmation of evidence very strongly implying election fraud, but damning (and unsurprising) nonetheless.

Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com

The best part is they got their exit polling data from Richard Charnin. Who is he? Nutcase! https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/jfk/

Edit: it should also be noted that the thread title and the source title is a lie. They do not confirm, nor even claim to confirm, voter fraud.

 

[joG]

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

More a confirmation of evidence very strongly implying election fraud, but damning (and unsurprising) nonetheless.

It certainly will require more research and that must be done thoroughly and fast. From what I can see of the study, it is far away from sufficient to make definitive judgement. It also seems to be meant as a political statement and must be read with caution.

 

[Surrealistik]

Here is a classic from them: FBI: Hitler Didn’t Die, Fled To Argentina – Stunning Admission | Your News Wire

Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com

The best part is they got their exit polling data from Richard Charnin. Who is he? Nutcase! https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/jfk/

This website sounds like a bastion of reliability.

Right, this man's fascination with JFK totally obviates his technical and statistical acumen and qualifications with respect to sourcing and collecting electoral data; of course:

"After graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, I was hired as a numerical control engineer/programmer for Grumman Aerospace Corporation. GAC was a major defense/aerospace manufacturer which built the Lunar Module, Navy fighter jets and commercial aircraft.

I obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University in 1969 and an MS in Operations Research from Polytechnic Institute of NY in 1973.

In 1976, I moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for White Weld & Co, an old-line investment bank that was acquired by Merrill Lynch in 1978. When personal computers first became available in 1982, I converted many of the mainframe FORTRAN application programs to Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets – and years later to Excel.

As an independent software consultant, I specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations."

Likewise I'm sure the other stories featured on the site which amuse you clearly invalidate the source paper, particularly when it's cited by other articles (in case it was at all ambiguous, they don't).

It certainly will require more research and that must be done thoroughly and fast. From what I can see of the study, it is far away from sufficient to make definitive judgement. It also seems to be meant as a political statement and must be read with caution.

Now that the Hillary partisan circlejerk with the usual suspects is over with, we finally come to the one adult post since the OP.

Agreed. It's merely a start, but what it purports to show thus far is foreboding.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

This was not a 'Stanford Study'. So the title is a lie but we suppose to believe the rest of what is written?

Nope.

 

[joG]

Right, this man's fascination with JFK totally obviates his technical and statistical acumen and qualifications with respect to sourcing and collecting electoral data; of course:

"After graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, I was hired as a numerical control engineer/programmer for Grumman Aerospace Corporation. GAC was a major defense/aerospace manufacturer which built the Lunar Module, Navy fighter jets and commercial aircraft.

I obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University in 1969 and an MS in Operations Research from Polytechnic Institute of NY in 1973.

In 1976, I moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for White Weld & Co, an old-line investment bank that was acquired by Merrill Lynch in 1978. When personal computers first became available in 1982, I converted many of the mainframe FORTRAN application programs to Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets – and years later to Excel.

As an independent software consultant, I specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations."

Likewise I'm sure the other stories featured on the site which amuse you clearly invalidate the source paper, particularly when it's cited by other articles (in case it was at all ambiguous, they don't).




Now that the Hillary partisan circlejerk with the usual suspects is over with, we finally come to the one adult post since the OP.

Agreed. It's merely a start, but what it purports to show thus far is foreboding.

Foreboding, possibly. But it would seem quite in keeping with the Clintons history and recent behavior if Democrats in general. Otherwise it would be wholly incredible.
The thing is, that that is well understood and nonetheless better than the alternatives. The voters have really bungled this one.

 

[Socrates1]

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

More a confirmation of evidence very strongly implying election fraud, but damning (and unsurprising) nonetheless.

Anytime a Clinton is involved there will be cheating and corruption it's in their blood !

 

[Surrealistik]

This was not a 'Stanford Study'. So the title is a lie but we suppose to believe the rest of what is written?

Nope.

The title embellishes, yes, but that embellishment in no way obviates the content of the Stanford paper.

Foreboding, possibly. But it would seem quite in keeping with the Clintons history and recent behavior if Democrats in general. Otherwise it would be wholly incredible.
The thing is, that that is well understood and nonetheless better than the alternatives. The voters have really bungled this one.

Yes, it would be in keeping with the filthy and dishonest nature of the Democratic nomination process, but I will assert that there's a substantial divide between a mere strong institutional bias and pro-Clinton debate scheduling as examples of DNC sins thus far, and straight up voter fraud.

 

[Deuce]

The title embellishes, yes, but that embellishment in no way obviates the content of the Stanford paper.




Yes, it would be in keeping with the filthy and dishonest nature of the Democratic nomination process, but I will assert that there's a substantial divide between a mere strong institutional bias and pro-Clinton debate scheduling as examples of DNC sins thus far, and straight up voter fraud.

The content of this Not Actually Stanford study is obviated by the fact that they haven't actually published any real content

 

[Redress]

The content of this Not Actually Stanford study is obviated by the fact that they haven't actually published any real content

But the did have it reviewed. One of the guys sent it to his dad to read, and his dad liked it!

And no, I did not make that up, it really is true.

 

[Surrealistik]

The content of this Not Actually Stanford study is obviated by the fact that they haven't actually published any real content

But the did have it reviewed. One of the guys sent it to his dad to read, and his dad liked it!

And no, I did not make that up, it really is true.

So if and when, after several months per the timeline issued by the authors:

Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system.

it gets published in a peer reviewed journal, will you two be eating your words? If so, I'd like to know just how bitter they are.

 

[Deuce]

So if and when, after several months per the timeline issued by the authors:

Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system.

it gets published in a peer reviewed journal, will you two be eating your words? If so, I'd like to know just how bitter they are.

Not all "peer reviewed journals" are created equal.

As an example, the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology accepted a paper titled "Get Me Off Your ****ing Mailing List." Its content was nothing but the same title sentence repeated over and over.

 

[Surrealistik]

Not all "peer reviewed journals" are created equal.

As an example, the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology accepted a paper titled "Get Me Off Your ****ing Mailing List." Its content was nothing but the same title sentence repeated over and over.

Sure, obviously the condition of eating your words is predicated on a recognized and accredited peer reviewed journal.

That said, in the interim, I've yet to see a legitimate critique on the paper that fundamentally dispels its conclusions. At worst, the critiques I've seen, including those Redress linked to, conclude that the paper requires more independent verification which is fair.

 

[Deuce]

Sure, obviously the condition of eating your words is predicated on a recognized and accredited peer reviewed journal.

That said, in the interim, I've yet to see a legitimate critique on the paper that fundamentally dispels its conclusions. At worst, the critiques I've seen, including those Redress linked to, conclude that the paper requires more independent verification which is fair.

My critique is ambiguous criteria for deciding what states are "open to fraud,"

 

[Surrealistik]

My critique is ambiguous criteria for deciding what states are "open to fraud,"

What's ambiguous about fraud vulnerable states being those without a paper trail to substantiate the voting?

 

[imyoda]

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud

More a confirmation of evidence very strongly implying election fraud, but damning (and unsurprising) nonetheless.

SORRY..........but "very strongly implies" is not the same as the headline asserts "Confirms.......Election Fraud".......

and without going into the "quality and accuracy" of the source

BTW

I thought that subjects from a known patrician source needs to be posted some where else..............and not in NON-MAIN STRRET MEDIA........and again not questioning if source could qualify as MSM

 

[Surrealistik]

SORRY..........but "very strongly implies" is not the same as the headline asserts "Confirms.......Election Fraud".......

and without going into the "quality and accuracy" of the source

Quality and accuracy of the source, namely the paper is fine; I've yet to see the paper itself be meaningfully debunked. Its biggest flaw at this point is the lack of peer review, but it's currently in the process of journal submission.

The article itself has taken liberties with its title, yes, but that doesn't demean the value of the underlying paper.

 

[imyoda]

Quality and accuracy of the source, namely the paper is fine; I've yet to see the paper itself be meaningfully debunked. Its biggest flaw at this point is the lack of peer review, but it's currently in the process of journal submission.

The article itself has taken liberties with its title, yes, but that doesn't demean the value of the underlying paper.

Well La-Dee-Da.......... The article and source are questionable........and posted in the wrong subject area.........

 

[Surrealistik]

Well La-Dee-Da.......... The article and source are questionable........and posted in the wrong subject area.........

I would not consider this website 'main stream'.

And the source is not questionable until demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Deuce]

What's ambiguous about fraud vulnerable states being those without a paper trail to substantiate the voting?

Because it's a ludicrous binary question trying to show you a picture of complicated election security measures.