the so-called "stanford study" from snopes:

[niyad]

now, can we shut up about this nonsense?

Fact Check Politics Ballot Box

Poll Position
Two researchers released a paper (not a study) examining whether primary election fraud that favored Hillary Clinton had occurred.
Kim LaCapria

Jun 15, 2016


Claim: A 2016 Stanford study revealed widespread primary election fraud in multiple states favoring Hillary Clinton.
Mixture

WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.

WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.

. . . .

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. So Snopes reveals Stanford Study is a Fraud.

These guys should get a job working for Trump.

[niyad]

2. who says they aren't?

[BooScout]

4. Good point...

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. I don't know that. It just resembles Trump's style of lies.

[niyad]

7. true. and the swiftboating crapola comes to mind as well.

[NWCorona]

10. Where does it say that it's a fraud.

Someone saying that it's a Stanford study is definitely wrong but snopes doesn't disprove the content of the paper and the authors are pretty straight forward in what it is.

The primaries are done and over and nothing including this will change the out come but that doesn't mean they are wrong. History will have the last answer.

[niyad]

16. not a stanford study, no peer review, etc.

[NWCorona]

20. Someone guilty of fraud has opened themselves up to liabilities and I dont see that here.

If I'm wrong please explain feel free to explain.

Snopes own judgment on the issue is "mixture".

[niyad]

21. what is true:

WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.

[NWCorona]

28. And where's the fraud part?

[niyad]

32. what do you not understand? this is NOT a "stanford study", it is merely a paper written

by, apparently, two stanford students. it was not peer-or academically reviewed. it is NOT what it claims to be. now, how hard is this to understand?

people are free to write anything they want. that does not make what they write true or valid, and that includes when it purports to be something it is NOT (in this case, supported by stanford as an actual study)

but, feel free to deny the truth of the lie of this paper.

[NWCorona]

36. Do you really think I don't understand that? I clearly have stated that it isn't a study

But that doesn't make it fraud when clearly the authors of the papers never represent it as such and snopes verdict isn't even close to fraud.

[MyNameGoesHere]

43. I studied my navel and found some lost votes

That's my study, and it is on equal footing because no one has checked or even witnessed my navel checking technique. By yhe way I found 3,000.000 votes for Clinton in there.

[NWCorona]

45. That's a whole lot of sense you made there. I've now changed my mind.

[skylucy]

80. Oh MyNameGoesHere---You are my hero. Thank you so much for

making me laugh so much!!! Hillary 2016

[Number23]

88. ONLY three million votes in your navel?? You can do better than that. Check your ears too!

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. It is not Stanford Study and not peer reviewed.

And yet it claimed to be. It makes claims that are false.

That fits the definition of fraud, but if you prefer a monstrous lie bereft of even the smallest vestige of fact, that's. Okay to.

[NWCorona]

23. Again if you want to blame those who brought this up of misrepresentation

Then feel free but snopes own judgment doesn't say anything close to fraud.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. A lie is a lie no matter what label we put on it.

[NWCorona]

34. And if you want to say that about the ones who read the paper

Seen Standford underneath the authors name and ran with it. Fine but that's far from being a fraud. I think people who aren't used to reading academic papers might make the same mistake and attribute it to the respective universities. Still not an excuse tho.

[Agnosticsherbet]

39. A Study made by real scientists using real data paid for by Oil companies that proves global warming

isn't real, is a fraud.
I have no problem saying that. Their intent is to mislead.

A study that begins by misrepresenting the origin of the study and lies about peer review is a fraud. They begin by misrepresenting themselves and the scientific authority of the study. Their intent is to mislead That is a fraud.

As to the global warming study, and there were many of them,we know the intent was to deny the validity of legitimate science so they could continue to make egregious profits.

We don't know why the people who published their study did it. They could be on Trump's payroll. They could be Sanders' Supporters who think they discovered something.

What we do know is that they start with a monstrous lie. That tells us they have no respect for the scientific method, peer review, other scientists, or the facts.

Sanders's supporters like and accept this because it justifies what they believe and gives it the aura of Scientific Evidence.

But it started with a lie, and those who care about facts and not just want to bolster their belief should call it what it is, a fraud.

[NWCorona]

41. Can you point to where the authors claim that this is a Standford study?

[randome]

49. The authors are straightfoward! LOL! Including the one who didn't use his own name?

Inspiring, isn't it?

[NWCorona]

50. I've downloaded the paper and nowhere does it claim to be a Standford study

But the name change is new to me and if true does change things.

Where is that where it says that he didn't use his real name?

[randome]

51. Post #31 by WhiteTara and down. And it's STANFORD, not Standford.

They didn't even spell the name of -supposedly- their own university right!

[NWCorona]

52. I wonder if it was their auto correct as that happened to me on this thread.

and I had to go back and correct it after the fact. Regardless it should have definitely been corrected before submitting it lol!

I asked WhiteTara the same question and he answer seemed a little cryptic but I as for clarification as that would definitely change my mind on this.

[obamanut2012]

57. lolz

[NWCorona]

59. That's an impressive comment you got there. Did you come up with that on your own?

[obamanut2012]

56. They also spelled Berkeley "Berkley"

[randome]

64. Sure, I'd trust these guys in an instant. To tie their own shoes. Maybe.

[scscholar]

78. This. Hillary won!

The only interesting part is all of the fraud.

[panader0]

22. No. They did not say it was a fraud. They said it was not a Stanford U backed study.

And that the study had not had a peer review. Big difference. The study may be totally true.
I'm sure these guys are no dummies. Facts are quite inconvenient to those who chose to deny them.

[villager]

33. No. Snopes conclusion is that it's a "mixture." Some assertions may indeed be true, more independent

...verification needed, etc.

All of which means is that every and any Democrat should be demanding more transparency and accountability in voting procedures, and vote counting, when and wherever it occurs.

[niyad]

71. snopes conclusion was that their claim to be stanford students was true.

[BooScout]

3. So the election fraud is a fraud...

[niyad]

5. exactly!

[sheshe2]

62. OT~

Beautiful sig line Boo.

[BooScout]

63. Thank you sheshe!

Yours is too!

[nolabear]

8. It's embarrassing how much of this gets to DU these days.

Were we always this nuts? Am I remembering incorrectly?

[niyad]

11. it wasn't always this bad.

[TwilightZone]

17. It used to be that stuff like this would get mocked for the obvious hackery it is.

Now, it gets a couple dozen recs and any debunking there is tends to get lost in the storm.

That being said, conspiracy theories have always been pretty popular here; they just weren't usually so focused on one of our candidates.

[Squinch]

73. Now statements like, "Hillary cheated a gazillion!!!!!" are defended to the death. (That's

essentially what the "study" said.)

[TwilightZone]

81. Agreed.

I understand seeing what one wants to see, but there comes a point when the obvious should find its way through once in a while. There are so many things wrong with the exit poll CTs that it's difficult to even know where to start.

[Squinch]

82. I can't help but think the fact that this "study" was first aired on the "Higgins News Network"

didn't give some of them pause.

I guess that's why we call it "blind" faith.

[TwilightZone]

83. I went to the site and my first thought was "does CNN know this guy stole all their stuff?"

[Squinch]

84. Except they have spell check and he, apparently, doesn't.

[progressoid]

48. Yes, there have always been wild ideas here.

Remember Fitzmas?

[Downwinder]

9. Is snopes subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny?

[KingFlorez]

15. They don't have to be in order to identify false or misleading information

[MineralMan]

12. Anyone can write any damned thing they can write.

That does not mean that what everyone writes is true, well-researched, or even close to the truth.

Anyone can also publish any damned thing they want on the internet. That a piece of writing exists on the internet also does not lend any credibility to it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. The study has been misrepresnted, absoutely

That is not the same as saying that its conclusion or methodology has been debunked. It has not been subjected to peer review and those who made the study do not have the earned credibility that Stanford as an institution does. So at this point one could possibly call it an "investigative lead" But the individuals involved have some academic training, and they presented the basis for their findings. They may be onto something or it could be wildly inaccurate, but sometimes it is "unknown people" like these who unearth information that runs contrary to previously accepted understandings. Agreed that nothing has yet been proven, nor have the findings themselves yet been debunked as far as I've seen reported so far.

[WhiteTara]

31. One of the authors admitted that he didn't

use his real name.

[MineralMan]

37. Oh, for pete's sake!

That's owning it, isn't it?

[NWCorona]

42. Where was that posted? That would be interesting.

[WhiteTara]

47. Go to "About"

strange read.

[NWCorona]

54. Can you clarify that a bit. I definitely want to see where you got that info.

[WhiteTara]

65. ...

http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-hillary-won-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/

go to the bottom of the home page, go to about and read
http://alexanderhiggins.com/about/

Okay, I did your work for you. Enjoy

[NWCorona]

70. I thought you were talking about one of the two authors of the paper in this article.

Thanks for the link and clarification!

[obamanut2012]

58. Which is academic fraud

100%. I work in the field, and that is really, really bad, as is presenting it as a peer-reviewed, Stanford-backed study.

[WhiteTara]

66. But the narrative is definite click bait.

who cares how real it is? Just as long as it a Clinton bashing post, it's all good.

[BlueStateLib]

13. Reminds me of B1 Bob's 1996 recount demands

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-21/news/9612210108_1_democrat-loretta-sanchez-voters-rosalyn-lever-recount

[MineralMan]

14. But, it confirms what someone thinks, so it must be correct.

Someone should post it immediately, everywhere he or she can, because the more links to it, the truer it becomes.

[niyad]

18. amazing how that works, yes?

[sheshe2]

24. It survived a jury...

MM~

[MineralMan]

38. Uff da!

[Surya Gayatri]

25. A-friggin'-men! A massive K & R.

[sheshe2]

26. Thanks niyad~

K&R!

[niyad]

27. you are most welcome.

[senz]

35. An excellent start on the part of Stanford graduate students. Hopefully more to come.

Glaring election anomalies need and deserve thorough investigation.

[Lord Magus]

77. If it's so "excellent" why no peer review?

"Researchers" who refuse to be subjected to peer review are more accurately called quacks.

[senz]

86. Too early for peer reviews.

Peer reviews are typically done prior to publication in academic journals. That takes time. If the studies are ongoing, then it will take quite a bit of time.

That does not invalidate the study's findings thus far.

[TwilightZone]

85. Only one of them is from Stanford.

Nice to see people are posting about it before even looking at the thing.

[wyldwolf]

40. too late! It's already part of 'progressive' election lore.

Years from now, people will still be referencing this "study."

[Squinch]

76. Yep. Repeat it six times, and it becomes fact to them.

[mcar]

44. Kick for truth!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Peer review is the sine qua non of any research that wants to be taken seriously.

[Sheepshank]

53. Kick....to help those buying into the nonsense

[obamanut2012]

55. Kicking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Dem2]

60. When you're still in college your work is golden

Once you graduate, nobody listens to you.

[Starry Messenger]

61. k&r

[sheshe2]

67. Kicking!

[Ace Rothstein]

68. I think the "study" was actually done at Stansbury.

The Harvard of the West.

[Squinch]

75. Or possibly over a Salisbury steak. Or maybe outside Santa Ana. Some "s" place.

[niyad]

72. . . .

[JoePhilly]

74. Drowning Bernie supporters will cling to anything to stay afloat.

Even this anvil.

[RandySF]

79. Some on the left are engaging in Tea Party style conspiracy peddling

And coming from the left makes no more ethical than the shit we witnessed a few years ago.

[riversedge]

87. YET ANOTHER HILLARY SMEAR BITES THE DUST!!

[niyad]

89. . . . .