What we do know about the 2016 Democratic primaries, is that an almost constant stream of questionable things occurred, and in more states than not. While we cannot definitively say that any of it was fraud, we can most certainly say that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest further investigation is warranted.
That the election in places like Arizona and New York and Puerto Rico and California and Nevada are being treated as if they are perfectly legitimate, all certified as “official”. That Hillary Clinton confidently states things like “the New York voters chose me”, without any hint of the problems that occurred. This is one of the fundamental reasons why Bernie Sanders supporters feel ignored.
The first piece of evidence:
The full report from Election Justice USA, of which I annotated the executive summary (the first eight pages). Now I know why Edison Research is worthy of protesting.
New information, supplied by Edison Research (which conducted the polling in question) directly to the author of the exit poll section of this report, on the adjustments made to the standard and scientific exit poll survey methodology, strongly suggests that the discrepancies between the vote counts and their respective exit polls were likely greater than the discrepancies shown in the tables of this report. The actual discrepancies may range as high as 16%-35% in some of the states. Without access to Edison’s raw exit poll data and a detailed account of the actual adjustments made, the actual discrepancies between the classic exit polls and the vote counts cannot be determined with certainty. The possibility exists that the unadjusted exit polls may show that candidate Sanders may have handily won the Democratic Party primary race.
These discrepancies occurred primarily in the Democratic Party primaries but not in the primaries of the Republican Party. This is remarkable, as the exit polls for both parties were conducted on the same day, in the same precincts, with the same interviewers, and used the same methodologies.
The second piece of evidence is a TYT Politics interview with the lead author of An Electoral System In Crisis, a study that was supported by Election Justice USA, and is complementary to their full report:
The third piece of evidence is this post by Citizens’ Media TV ally, and sometimes correspondent, John Laurits (here’s my one, two, three part conversation-interview with John, recapping the Democratic National Convention). The graphs discussed in the above video are the subject of this post. And the post features this video about jellybeans, making it clear exactly what those graphs mean and why they are important:
So while there’s plenty of evidence to warrant further investigation, and plenty of people want that investigation to proceed, unfortunately, none of them have enough power to break through Billionaire Wall. I don’t want to “prove fraud”. I just want to know the truth.