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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

bkkyosemite

(5,792 posts)
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 01:27 PM Jun 2016

Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies [View all]

excerpts:

"Standford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible” and that “the probability of this this happening was is 1 in 77 billion”.

"Namely that Hillary’s win was could have only been possible a result of widespread election fraud."

" the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible” and that “the probability of this this happening was is 1 in 77 billion”.

"Furthermore, the researchers found that the election fraud only occurred in places where the voting machines were hackable and that did not keep an paper trail of the ballots."

"In these locations Hillary won by massive margins."

"On the other hand, in locations that were not hackable and did keep paper trails of the ballots Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton."

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

Pick it apart all you want but it is the truth. Four studies..........the same truth. Another stolen election and the winners of the fraudulent election are gleeful. Democracy has a problem. My opinion of course.

148 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Those odds aren't that bad at all. NWCorona Jun 2016 #1
HRC needs to go out and buy some Powerball tickets. Winning that will be cake to do. TheBlackAdder Jun 2016 #40
Truth! NWCorona Jun 2016 #50
She already has. She has "won" $150,000,000. That was rigged also. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #141
I am a Senator Sanders supporter... Cooley Hurd Jun 2016 #2
The reports all over this country cannot just be shoved under the rug of deception. Truth is truth. bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #5
Please, pragmatism is needed moving forward... Cooley Hurd Jun 2016 #11
there is nothing pragmatic about ignoring election fraud tk2kewl Jun 2016 #20
So you'll be fine if we rig the election? RobertEarl Jun 2016 #22
I will be happy with whatever it takes to deny the GOP the WH. Cooley Hurd Jun 2016 #36
The vote count theft is not inter-party RobertEarl Jun 2016 #41
I have no clue? Cooley Hurd Jun 2016 #47
That is an insult to veterans votesparks Jun 2016 #108
Um... wat? Cooley Hurd Jun 2016 #109
"insulting veterans" Seems legit ! stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #130
What's wrong is wrong. InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2016 #88
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #59
Wow... Cooley Hurd Jun 2016 #60
YOU ARE HAPPY WITH FRAUD! Pastiche423 Jun 2016 #72
I, most certainly, am not "happy with fraud". Cooley Hurd Jun 2016 #107
And she isn't a danger to our lives? Pastiche423 Jun 2016 #115
No. Cooley Hurd Jun 2016 #124
I so don't agree with you on Amaril Jun 2016 #142
Even Bernie said the elections were not rigged. riversedge Jun 2016 #78
The story is a joke, right? kstewart33 Jun 2016 #77
lol La Lioness Priyanka Jun 2016 #86
Guess what: it's possible to fight both Trump and election fraud at the same time. snot Jun 2016 #119
Thank you. This election is over. If this crazy stuff is true, then work on it for the next election kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #145
It's not a Stanford study. It's a blog by idiots for idiots. randome Jun 2016 #3
"It's a blog by idiots for idiots." And now it's -- shockingly!!-- made its way to GDP!! Number23 Jun 2016 #117
No waaaay! Why is THAT surprising? kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #146
Higgins Network News? vdogg Jun 2016 #4
And you? RobertEarl Jun 2016 #24
"If you had done much research ..." MH1 Jun 2016 #63
Have you researched any? RobertEarl Jun 2016 #105
I've done research that has ended up in reputable journals- you have to use data from peer-reviewed kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #147
Please felix_numinous Jun 2016 #56
+1 obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #66
tick tock, tick tock ... time is running out for OPs like this n/t SFnomad Jun 2016 #6
"Tick tock!" Everyone drink! pinebox Jun 2016 #16
There is NO SCHOOL named Standford. apcalc Jun 2016 #7
intentionally mispelled? BootinUp Jun 2016 #10
And the alleged Cal link spells Berkeley without the first "e" Berkley. brush Jun 2016 #23
Have at it guys and gals. There is so much more including those actual studies... bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #8
Pure garbage. "Widespread fraud?" Outrageous Hortensis Jun 2016 #9
It could be the MIC is involved. Or do we pretend they steer clear of our elections? reformist2 Jun 2016 #12
bernie is one of the MIC's biggest supporters lol. need an F-35? call Uncle Bernie nt msongs Jun 2016 #13
^^ mikeysnot Jun 2016 #27
I know right? Ignorance is bliss. Phlem Jun 2016 #32
I'm pretty sure it was the Illuminati COLGATE4 Jun 2016 #55
+1000 stonecutter357 Jun 2016 #132
Kickin' for the truth! Faux pas Jun 2016 #14
It's not Stanford. It's a grad student. There's been no peer or independent review of the study. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #15
All the many irregularities out there are just nonsense right wrong! bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #19
If one has to lie repeatedly trying to make a point... TwilightZone Jun 2016 #26
this is the second time in two days I have been called a liar. I am not a liar!...unbelievable. bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #39
You could bother to read my post. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #45
Son, you've been had. Again. Squinch Jun 2016 #17
lol nt BootinUp Jun 2016 #21
"Standford" and "Berkley" -- lolz obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #67
The boys at the Higgins News Network are not the best spellers... Squinch Jun 2016 #68
I tried to find them on my Comcast Xfinity obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #127
Noticed the same thing. I mean really!! yardwork Jun 2016 #100
Caralina and Dook obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #126
It's definitely Dook though MadBadger Jun 2016 #129
I know -- i did that one on purpose obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #138
Hey, hey! yardwork Jun 2016 #133
hahaha Go Hails! obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #137
Oh stop! Standford is a totally reputable institution! Many graduates go on to Yell or Hartsvard! Number23 Jun 2016 #118
I got my degree in mystical statistics from Hogwarts! Hav Jun 2016 #121
Professor Trelawney teaches it obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #128
And Brun -- Amy Carter went there obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #125
Check out the source of this "report" please. hedda_foil Jun 2016 #18
Because DU is no longer for anyone but Clinton supporters. No choices otherwise bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #25
I am not now and have never been a Clinton supporter. hedda_foil Jun 2016 #31
Probably because Bev Harris is largely considered to be a fraud on DU... TwilightZone Jun 2016 #34
Thanks TZ. I'm hopeless at digging out old threads on are rival versions of DU. hedda_foil Jun 2016 #52
that's a name I haven't seen in years dlwickham Jun 2016 #103
Odds that this is bullshit MattP Jun 2016 #28
We know that. We called the cheating in real time, remember? yourpaljoey Jun 2016 #29
I am not surprised, and while the counts have narrowed in California, Hillary will be the winner still_one Jun 2016 #30
Does it not seem strange to you that she declared victory before the count in CA and elsewhere bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #42
No. That was AP projecting it based on its models and early voting. There are about 1.4 million still_one Jun 2016 #51
"AP seems to think was wrong" TwilightZone Jun 2016 #64
No it does not seem strange to me at all. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #73
Alex Jones-worthy balderdash. You need another hobby... Surya Gayatri Jun 2016 #33
Pathetic what Sanders fans have become. woolldog Jun 2016 #35
Yea so pathetic the name calling on here is what is pathetic! bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #43
If the name fits... woolldog Jun 2016 #46
Lol! zappaman Jun 2016 #37
Well, the chances of Bernie being the Dem nominee is...ONE IN ELEVENTY-JILLION! Tarc Jun 2016 #38
Probably you are right because of FRAUD bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #44
Surely you can provide links to sources covering Sanders' legal challenges to a primary result? Tarc Jun 2016 #48
OMG quit being ridiculous, this doesn;t help obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #69
I felt brain cells dying off as I read your post. Metric System Jun 2016 #49
Maybe you should see a neurologist.. bkkyosemite Jun 2016 #58
This 'supposed 'study' used ecit poll discrepancies apcalc Jun 2016 #53
The "studies" author isn't a mathematician ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #136
Ayup. Hillary has learned well from her Bush brethren... AzDar Jun 2016 #54
Nothing to see; Get Over it; Move on...... Chasstev365 Jun 2016 #57
Odd that this was a well reserched Stanford study 1 in 177 billion. nt glennward Jun 2016 #61
... SidDithers Jun 2016 #62
lolz you guys! obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #65
Crack pot report (not a study), where you bolded way too much-conspiracy style Sheepshank Jun 2016 #70
Conspiracy theorists are immune to reality realmirage Jun 2016 #71
This fake non-peer-reviewed "study" is simply a lie. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #74
... LexVegas Jun 2016 #75
"In locations...that did keep paper trails" -- you mean like California? Hekate Jun 2016 #76
This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #79
It wasn't a Stanford Study and it wasn't peer reviewed. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #80
We found the fraud itsrobert Jun 2016 #81
The is the actual Stanford location where the study was conducted ... JoePhilly Jun 2016 #82
I usually don't enter into these kind of 'kook & weirdo' threads.... LenaBaby61 Jun 2016 #84
The entire primary was as fake as the moon landing! JoePhilly Jun 2016 #85
hahahahahaha obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #97
One of your best yet JoePhilly! redstateblues Jun 2016 #111
The level of ... JoePhilly Jun 2016 #135
Well then they should take the studies to the WH and the DNC and raise hell if they feel concerned. Rex Jun 2016 #83
The same White House hiding her email until after the election? onecaliberal Jun 2016 #87
Then go to the media or Congress, surely this would be front page news all over the world right? Rex Jun 2016 #89
No nothing is bought and paid for. Do you live under a rock? onecaliberal Jun 2016 #91
Then you have no point at all? Rex Jun 2016 #93
I have a great point, I just don't waste time arguing with walls. onecaliberal Jun 2016 #95
Good then you are done and will walk away, with your point still intact. Rex Jun 2016 #96
If you think Americans don't know this election was stolen by the people who own everything onecaliberal Jun 2016 #98
Tell me, when did you first start realizing America was a plutocracy? Rex Jun 2016 #99
You mean the same emails... LenaBaby61 Jun 2016 #90
No, I mean the emails that have exposed the fact that the SOS used real names onecaliberal Jun 2016 #94
You still must mean.... LenaBaby61 Jun 2016 #113
So, Obama is part of the non-existent election rigging? obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #140
Wow, talk about delusional sore losers. Beacool Jun 2016 #92
Take your stupid post down. Snopes says it is NOT a study. riversedge Jun 2016 #101
Not only not true (as per Snopes) but radical noodle Jun 2016 #102
Snopes merely disproved it was a Stanford study- it's by Stanford/Tillburg grad student researchers AtomicKitten Jun 2016 #110
"Researchers" who've declined to subject their "study" to peer review. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #120
Wasn't she the front-runner from the very beginning? bhikkhu Jun 2016 #104
I feel sorry for you all. It's embarrassing that you believe this crap. nt BreakfastClub Jun 2016 #106
I recommend BSS read Eckhart Tolle's "Power of Now" redstateblues Jun 2016 #112
Researchers must have never listened creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #114
K&R -- thanks from those of us who favor fair and honest elections. senz Jun 2016 #116
Stolen like Bonnie and Clyde. MaeScott Jun 2016 #122
Snopes' take: spooky3 Jun 2016 #123
You don't need outright fraud... tom-servo Jun 2016 #131
Candidates aren't selected by popular vote, they are selected by those that count the vote. -nt- NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #134
Kicking for the lolz subthreads! obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #139
The hackable voting machine issue still has not been addressed to my satisfaction since 2000. EndElectoral Jun 2016 #143
^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^ pdsimdars Jun 2016 #144
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2016 #148
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Odds Hillary Won Without ...»Reply #0