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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies [View all]obamanut2012
(27,457 posts)69. OMG quit being ridiculous, this doesn;t help
It's actually one in a quillion zillion willion.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
148 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies [View all]
bkkyosemite
Jun 2016
OP
HRC needs to go out and buy some Powerball tickets. Winning that will be cake to do.
TheBlackAdder
Jun 2016
#40
The reports all over this country cannot just be shoved under the rug of deception. Truth is truth.
bkkyosemite
Jun 2016
#5
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 a blog by idiots for idiots." And now it's -- shockingly!!-- made its way to GDP!!
Number23
Jun 2016
#117
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
Have at it guys and gals. There is so much more including those actual studies...
bkkyosemite
Jun 2016
#8
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
It's not Stanford. It's a grad student. There's been no peer or independent review of the study.
TwilightZone
Jun 2016
#15
this is the second time in two days I have been called a liar. I am not a liar!...unbelievable.
bkkyosemite
Jun 2016
#39
Oh stop! Standford is a totally reputable institution! Many graduates go on to Yell or Hartsvard!
Number23
Jun 2016
#118
Because DU is no longer for anyone but Clinton supporters. No choices otherwise
bkkyosemite
Jun 2016
#25
Thanks TZ. I'm hopeless at digging out old threads on are rival versions of DU.
hedda_foil
Jun 2016
#52
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
Surely you can provide links to sources covering Sanders' legal challenges to a primary result?
Tarc
Jun 2016
#48
Crack pot report (not a study), where you bolded way too much-conspiracy style
Sheepshank
Jun 2016
#70
Well then they should take the studies to the WH and the DNC and raise hell if they feel concerned.
Rex
Jun 2016
#83
Then go to the media or Congress, surely this would be front page news all over the world right?
Rex
Jun 2016
#89
If you think Americans don't know this election was stolen by the people who own everything
onecaliberal
Jun 2016
#98
No, I mean the emails that have exposed the fact that the SOS used real names
onecaliberal
Jun 2016
#94
Snopes merely disproved it was a Stanford study- it's by Stanford/Tillburg grad student researchers
AtomicKitten
Jun 2016
#110
I feel sorry for you all. It's embarrassing that you believe this crap. nt
BreakfastClub
Jun 2016
#106
Candidates aren't selected by popular vote, they are selected by those that count the vote. -nt-
NorthCarolina
Jun 2016
#134
The hackable voting machine issue still has not been addressed to my satisfaction since 2000.
EndElectoral
Jun 2016
#143