Daria, I have provided EVIDENCE: a pattern of discrepancies from the exit polls both in Massachusetts and throughout the Democratic primaries. Proof comes from reason applied to evidence.
Daria, I have provided EVIDENCE: a pattern of discrepancies from the exit polls both in Massachusetts and throughout the Democratic primaries. Proof comes from reason applied to evidence.
Your sources do not support your conclusion. The final one on your list has the most weight, in my view, and it uses the same source (Theodore Soares) that I relied on for my conclusion that Biden stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Generally, one would expect a margin of discrepancy within one percent.
However, in any state with widespread mail-in voting, the exit poll results become unreliable. Was this the case in any of the four states that the article focuses on? In three of the four, the margin of discrepancy is significantly greater than the margin of victory, strongly suggesting that Hillary actually won them. In Florida, the margin of discrepancy is just over one percent bigger than Trump's margin of victory, but the other three states together would have given the national victory to Hillary.
And finally in New York, which Hillary won big, there was a big discrepancy in Hillary's favor, but not close to enough to swing the election.
Theodore Soares documented a similar shift -- in the opposite direction -- in the Alabama Senate race, where the Republicans (according to the exit poll discrepancy) padded their already-comfortable margin of victory.
And once again, the exit polls showed a consistent pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with Massachusetts being by far the most egregious example, followed by Michigan (where the closing data was suppressed, according to Soares).
Daria, I have provided EVIDENCE: a pattern of discrepancies from the exit polls both in Massachusetts and throughout the Democratic primaries. Proof comes from reason applied to evidence.
Edit polls are not at all an accurate indicator of election fraud. Period.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pre-election-polls-were-wrong-the-exit-polls-are-worse/
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-6046-de2d-a57f-7a6e8c950000
https://www.newsweek.com/how-they-will-suggest-election-was-stolen-517965
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/20/citizens-for-donald-trump-exit-poll-roger-stone-rigged-election-claim
https://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/
Your sources do not support your conclusion. The final one on your list has the most weight, in my view, and it uses the same source (Theodore Soares) that I relied on for my conclusion that Biden stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Generally, one would expect a margin of discrepancy within one percent.
However, in any state with widespread mail-in voting, the exit poll results become unreliable. Was this the case in any of the four states that the article focuses on? In three of the four, the margin of discrepancy is significantly greater than the margin of victory, strongly suggesting that Hillary actually won them. In Florida, the margin of discrepancy is just over one percent bigger than Trump's margin of victory, but the other three states together would have given the national victory to Hillary.
And finally in New York, which Hillary won big, there was a big discrepancy in Hillary's favor, but not close to enough to swing the election.
Theodore Soares documented a similar shift -- in the opposite direction -- in the Alabama Senate race, where the Republicans (according to the exit poll discrepancy) padded their already-comfortable margin of victory.
And once again, the exit polls showed a consistent pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with Massachusetts being by far the most egregious example, followed by Michigan (where the closing data was suppressed, according to Soares).