The Presidential Campaign of 2016 will become known as the “Year of Blue Voter Denial.” From Hillary’s health issues to the FBI investigations of violations of the Espionage Act, Hillary supporters, and the MSM have excelled in ignoring Hillary Clinton’s cover-ups and reprehensible acts. Likewise, the fact that the 2016 Presidential primary was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton is yet another fraud, which has been conveniently either explained away or ignored by MSM.
In 11 of the 25 Presidential primaries, the exit poll discrepancies favored Clinton by more than the statistical margin of error. This included one primary in which the results were twice the margin of error. The probability of one candidate actually getting more votes than predicted by more than the margin of error in more than one-third of the primaries is 1 in 70 billion, according to mathematician Richard Charnin. Some have used the argument that the exit polls are inaccurate. However, exit polls by the same private research firm conducted for the 2016 Republican primary, some of which were held at the same time and polling places as the Democratic primary, were actually extremely accurate in predicting actual voter results.
There were other inexplicable discrepancies in the 2016 Democratic primary, as well. It has been demonstrated that in states having a paper audit trail, Sanders won by an average of 2%. On the other hand, in those states with voting machines that did not produce a paper trail, Sanders lost by a whopping 30%. Likewise, in 13 of the 14 states using the caucus system, Sanders won by an average of 65 percent. To date, no one has come forward with a plausible explanation as to why Clinton performed so much better in states in which votes could not be verified.
Despite concrete data supporting election fraud, Clinton supporters, as well as MSM, have either ignored the issue or belittled its impact. The New York Times was one of a few MSM sources that attempted to explain away the glaring discrepancies in the 2016 Democratic primary. In its article, “Exit Polls, and Why the Primary Was Not Stolen from Bernie Sanders,” the NYT makes several assertions. Its first claim: that the 2000 and 2004 general election exit polls, and the 2016 exit polls, were all simply inaccurate.
Exit polls are designed specifically for the purpose of predicting the outcome of a particular election. They are conducted at the voting site by a private research firm, Edison Media Research, which is employed by the six major media organizations. They are designed to enable the media outlets to predict in advance the most likely winner before the actual counts are in. However, if the exit polls are as inaccurate as the NYT claims them to be, then why does MSM even bother going to the trouble and expense of conducting them?
Another example cited by the NYT article that supposedly confirms the unreliability of the exit polls is the fact that younger voters are more likely than older voters to complete the exit poll survey. Therefore, the argument goes, the exit polls are over-represented by young voters. This a horrible example with which to defend their position. Bernie Sanders was immensely popular among the younger voters. In fact, Millennials are twice as likely to have voted for Bernie than Hillary. Given that the Millennials are also more likely to complete the exit poll survey, then the only logical outcome is that the exit polls would be biased in favor of Bernie. But, in fact, the opposite was true. In making this argument, the NYT actually affirms that the election fraud may have actually been worse than that demonstrated by the exit polls themselves.
Contrary to NYT’s unsubstantiated argument that exit polls are inaccurate, exit polls are the standard means for auditing for election fraud at the polling places throughout the world. There is no better way to confirm the vote than to query a group of people as they exit the voting site. In Germany, exit polls have historically been accurate by more than three-tenths of one percent. In addition, they are used in developing nations as means of substantiating the integrity of the election process. In November 2004, exit polls (which were funded by the Bush Administration) in the Ukraine exposed election fraud that cost Victor Yushchenko the presidency. Ironically, that same month, the Bush administration was accused of rigging the election, particularly in the battleground state of Ohio, where an estimated 300,000 voters were removed from the registration rolls without their knowledge. Mark Hertsgaard of Mother Jones tackled this topic in 2005.
The Wikileaks DNC emails, which were released just prior to the DNC Convention, substantiate that the DNC had access to state Democratic voting registration rolls, and “audited” them bi-annually. In fact, the DNC collaborated with the state board of elections officials to emulate the GOP’s standard voter suppression tactics by eliminating voters from the registration rolls based upon certain demographic information.
Sure enough, during the 2016 Democratic primary, in NY, particularly in minority neighborhoods, more than 100,000 voters claim that they were illicitly removed from the rosters. In addition, there were accusations of election fraud in at least 8 other states: Arizona, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, and California.
The Oligarchy-anointed puppet, Hillary Clinton, has the backing of most of the high- and low-profile politicians; both Democrats and Republicans. Despite this fact, she is exceedingly unpopular with the American people. According to the Wall Street Journal, in August 2016, Hillary Clinton polled at a historically high unfavorable rating that is matched only by her current political opponent. Fifty-nine percent of registered voters view Clinton unfavorably, and 60% of registered voters dislike Trump. The only unfavorable rating coming close to these ratings in the last 30 years is that of GHW Bush’s unfavorable rating of 53% when he ran against Bill Clinton in 1992.
Unless Clinton’s unfavorable ratings show a marked improvement before election day, it’s difficult to envision her winning the election. We can take a lesson from her husband’s first election in 1992. During that election, third party candidate, Ross Perot, had a strong showing with 19% of the vote. GHW Bush, with an unfavorable rating of 12% less than Hillary Clinton, garnished just 37% of the vote. And her husband squeaked by to win with just 43% of the popular vote.
Since the election of 1936, only one other candidate won the Presidential election with just 43% of the popular vote—Richard Nixon in 1968. That election also included a third party candidate, George Wallace, who won 14% of the vote. In both the Clinton and Nixon elections, the third party candidate had strong showings, and the winning candidates won only 43% of the vote.
All indications are that in the 2016 election, the two third party candidates will also have a good showing. The fact that both Clinton and Trump are scoring historically high unfavorable ratings does not bode well for the two major candidates. The most recent MSM polling shows Clinton in the lead with 43% to Trump’s 37%, and the two third parties coming in at 14% total. Ironically, this is the actual election results of the 1992 election. However, if Jill Stein and Gary Johnson together garner at least 20% of the vote, which is highly likely, then it would be next to impossible for Clinton to win the election.
The only way that we can stop voter suppression is to stop election fraud and elect politicians who will repeal voter suppression laws. Thus, our priority is to eliminate election fraud so that we can defeat candidates who support voter suppression.
During the 2016 primary, election fraud was insidious until it was exposed by and through the exit polls’ results. While banning voting machines, and adopting a paper ballot policy will prevent election fraud via hacking, this policy will not prevent corruption during the process of tallying the paper ballots. Since the two major political parties have complete control over the state electoral boards, as well as the ability to exclude the public from the tallying process, they can determine the outcome. Thus, the ONLY way to ensuring a clean election at the voting booth is through a verification process such as exit polls.
But, we must have exit polls that are performed by a neutral party, such as non-profit international organizations. The current MSM-operated exit polls are worthless, as they are simply scapegoated during the case of actual election fraud. The denial of facts is unacceptable as it promotes even more denial and the continuation of the same problems.
We are currently at ground zero, looking into our crystal ball, and seeing election fraud happening on November 8, 2016. Without clean and fair elections, our democracy is gone. We must do everything in our power to ensure that votes are not changed, eliminated, or otherwise not counted. Without clean elections, nothing else really matters.