Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

laserhaas

(7,805 posts)
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 12:10 PM Jun 2016

Harvard & Stanford Reviews Document Media/Vote Bias Against Bernie [View all]

Fitting for the last day of freedom is a discussion about the main stream media bias and vote irregularities that always pounced upon Senator Bernie Sanders efforts, via the Democratic Primary, in the hopes of becoming President of the United States; because Harvard University ftound extreme media bias and Stanford found empirical evidences of anamolies bias, during the 2016 Democratic Primary, against Bernie Sanders.

Even if, arguendo, you are always for Hillary, these findings should upset you.
[br[[hr][br]

[font color=navy]Here's US Uncut Politics review of Harvards study on media and the primaries.[/font]
[br]
Media Coverage of the Primaries Was Awful, Harvard Study Confirms
https://usuncut.com/politics/harvard-study-media-primaries/

[center] [font size=5]



Harvard Study Confirms
Media Coverage of the Primaries
Was Awful
[/font][/center]


The perception of the Clinton vs. Sanders race created by the media’s earliest coverage generated an aura of inevitability for Hillary Clinton and encouraged a dismissive attitude toward Sanders despite his early mega-rallies on the West Coast and huge advantage with small-dollar donations.

The Shorenstein Center’s study should vindicate supporters of Bernie Sanders and non-Trump Republican candidates alike, as it proves the media’s inherent bias in covering the billionaire real estate developer and the former Secretary of State for the purpose of driving ad revenue and clicks rather than for the purpose of informing the public.
[br][hr][br]
[center][font size=5 color=navy]

Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, of Stanford,
did a joint Study on Election Fraud with,
Netherlands Tilburg University's - Alex Geijsel [/font]





[/center]

Their June 7, 2016 paper (Here) is titled "Are we witnessing a dishonest election" and it poses the question by "A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America".

Quotes at top of the discussion paper:

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you
cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” ­ Abraham Lincoln


“No one has yet figured out a straightforward method of ensuring that one of the most revered democratic institutions – in this case, electing a U.S. president – can be double checked for fraud, particularly when paperless e­voting systems are used.” ­ Larry Greenemeier, Scientific American


Conclusion

Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election.


And the last sentence of the paragraph makes a very disturbing conclusion that:

This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.


emphasis is mine.......
[br][hr][br]

I'm unfamiliar with the Netherlands University and the Stanford Professor; but they bright line what we've all discussed.

As for me, I'm Bern or Bust and must bridle my tongue, or be bojo'd

(fret not Laser haters, I am who I am and my bags are already packed)

As for the rest of you, let the banter wars - for the last day that they may - B E G I N
[center]
(and - end - rather swiftly).
[/center]
[br][br]



35 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Hillary won, fair and square, don't you dare say otherwise
6 (17%)
Bernie got a raw deal; and still has done exceptionally - as a gentleman
28 (80%)
These professors are loons
1 (3%)
The study appears to be independent - especially given The Netherlands
0 (0%)
Laser is a Loon
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Stanford/Tilburg paper criticized and was responded to, quickly, with facts laserhaas Jun 2016 #1
Jury results Amaril Jun 2016 #2
Aw -damn... I just lost the bet pool laserhaas Jun 2016 #3
Kickin' for the truth! Faux pas Jun 2016 #4
Pshaw! - Barring an arising Smoking Gun, regrettably, the only way to fix, is Congress or Courts laserhaas Jun 2016 #6
The BIG issue is the strongly negative tone for Hortensis Jun 2016 #5
The old adage, there's no such thing as bad publicity laserhaas Jun 2016 #7
Wow, how about you back up the claim that Sanders built his campaign on ignorance. It's nice to JCanete Jun 2016 #8
The only rationale dat kuud B off'rd - is laserhaas Jun 2016 #9
Maybe go read about populism and the typical Hortensis Jun 2016 #10
That isn't true about Sanders campaign in the least. JCanete Jun 2016 #16
They see she's a Clinton and she's a she and she's a Hillary laserhaas Jun 2016 #17
Except coverage of the issues was NOT equal - HRC got 4x more coverage Doremus Jun 2016 #12
We are pawns of the media, who have no compunction, nor motivation, to be anything other than self laserhaas Jun 2016 #13
You misunderstood my point, and Hortensis Jun 2016 #15
Anyone with a populist message benefits from discontent but the message must be broadcast Doremus Jun 2016 #18
Gotcha. No wonder what's-his-name lost. Hortensis Jun 2016 #22
Still going over this but ismnotwasm Jun 2016 #11
Me thinks the AP thump was a "Red Herring" to cloak the rigs laserhaas Jun 2016 #14
This message was self-deleted by its author NCTraveler Jun 2016 #19
K&R.. disillusioned73 Jun 2016 #20
Thanks laserhaas Jun 2016 #21
I think Hillary won fair and square, but folks should say otherwise bigwillq Jun 2016 #23
Its only a discussion of facts laserhaas Jun 2016 #24
Not much of a surprise. nt eastwestdem Jun 2016 #25
Election fraud is real. peace13 Jun 2016 #26
Exactly.....Liking results of fraud because your pick won laserhaas Jun 2016 #28
KnR nt chknltl Jun 2016 #27
Thanks laserhaas Jun 2016 #29
I regularly just knr-nt stuff i think worthy but... chknltl Jun 2016 #30
Im extremely disheartened as Bernie is our only hope laserhaas Jun 2016 #31
Now #Guccifer2 supplies new info laserhaas Jun 2016 #32
Indepth arguments and empirical math studies are found laserhaas Jun 2016 #33
More and more evidence has arose - but those who benefited by such - don't care laserhaas Jun 2016 #34
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Harvard & Stanford Review...»Reply #0