3 ms·
Wasn't [2] already refuted? E.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html http://www.nyt
by conistonwater 10y ago
Wasn't [2] already refuted? E.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-the-primary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/upshot/exit-polls-and-why-...
- Jerry2 10y agoRefuted? Which instance? There was so many of them. Go check out this series of posts to see corruption in action: https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/ https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/
- conistonwater 10y agoAs the NYTimes article points out, a discrepancy between exit polls and results (the main claim of the article you linked to) is not evidence of fraud, rather of the quality of exit polling, which is subject to a number of biases. If those biases are not correctly eliminated, the results will differ. Also, with due respect, that blog looks rather crackpotty. As if anyone should be surprised that a leftie social democrat wouldn't do well in a US election.