Response to the argument that "Sanders voters" put Trump in office.

[RandomAccess]

126. Thank you. FOR EXAMPLE --

Here is how they stole the election, well this and KGB operatives

Crosscheck in action:
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922

Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824

Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393
http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

And there are a lot of other pieces, but here's one:

PALMER: Donald Trump won every surprise swing state by the same 1% margin
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/rigged-election-donald-trump-won-every-surprise-swing-state-by-the-same-1-margin/118/

The most commonly posited explanation of Donald Trump’s shocking election victory was that every professional pollster in the nation – despite each working independently and using differing methodologies – somehow managed to overlook the same pockets of Trump voters in these states. If such pockets did exist, they would have existed in varying sizes in each of the four states, thus resulting in different sized wins in each.

Ask any statistician and they’ll tell you that a reasonable distribution of the results would have been Trump winning one of the states by one percent, won one of them by perhaps three percent, won one of them by two percent, lost one of them by one percent, or something along those lines. But instead the voting tallies looked startlingly different from any natural distribution. In fact they looked startlingly the same.

According to the New York Times, the voting results broke down like this: Trump won Florida by just over one percent of the vote. He also won Pennsylvania by just over one percent. He won Michigan by just under one percent. And he won Wisconsin by precisely one percent. That’s not how numbers tend to work in the real world.

On its own, this kin of suspiciously consistent numerical dispersion across the four states that decided the election would be something that could be written off as a mere fluke. But when you put it within the context of the numerous other ways in which the voting tallies make no mathematical sense, it points to the numbers having been rigged or altered.

More from Palast:

Greg Palast? @Greg_Palast

Link to tweet

1. WaPo says #Trump won because "fewer blacks voted." They left out that Black folk TRIED to vote and were blocked
2. WaPo points out "change in turnout rates for different racial/ethnic groups" was "especially strong" in key swing states (MI, WI, PA)
3. But WaPo fails to mention 75,355 ballots, mostly in Detroit, weren’t counted — fully explaining the Black vote drop in MI for example
4. If Black votes were counted & Blacks not blocked at polls, Trump would still be grabbing crotches in Trump Tower https://www.scribd.com/document/347821649/Priorities-USA-Voter-Suppression-Memo …
5. States with highest Black vote drop (MI, WI, OH, NC) had biggest vote list purges and new ID laws. It’s not "turn-out," it’s Jim Crow.
6. Blacks were NOT ALLOWED to vote https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/ …
7. Add in students without the new IDs required in places like Madison, WI & Ann Arbor, MI https://www.scribd.com/document/347821649/Priorities-USA-Voter-Suppression-Memo …
8. And add those who couldn't give "acceptable" proof of citizenship http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2017/05/02/maricopa-county-voter-registration-citizenship-adrian-fontes/308435001/ …
9. I repeat: It’s not "turn-out" it’s Jim Crow. Pls support our investigation into the theft of the 2016 election

Brookings?Verified account @BrookingsInst

Link to tweet

And speaking of FLorida, I read the other day -- but also remember from the time -- that during early voting Clinton had wrapped up Florida, that it was "mathematically impossible" for her not to win FL. And yet, she didn't. How can that be?