More evidence the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders

So, some people don't think the Election Justice USA PDF is credible and that it's biased or something. Looking at the data itself, it looks reliable and trustworthy enough and uses good science, but whatever. Here's another PDF from Stanford University that implies Clinton stole the primary. Hopefully people will put more stock into an actual famous university arguing this stuff. I hate to pull an argument from authority, but it seems like it's the only thing we can do with people who bury their head in the sand.

This one is short so I can cover it more in depth. Much like Election Justice USA, this analysis looks at a lot of data related to how people voted, flagging suspicious patterns that may indicate vote rigging. Let's look into the details.

Paper trails

The author found significant differences in polling places with paper trails than areas without them. This is important because areas without paper trails are more susceptible to rigging and rigging is harder to prove. They found that on average, areas without paper trails were much more friendly to Clinton than areas with paper trails. No such correlation was found in 2008 either. Hmm, interesting...

 Caucuses

They also analyzed data for caucuses, and only found off results in the two states (Iowa and Nevada) where voter suppression was reported. Also interesting...

Exit polls vs results

 This was also covered in Election Justice USA's analysis, but there were also a lot of differences between exit polls and the results, and that these results generally tended to trend in favor of Hillary.

2008 vs 2016

To control for these results, data was compared against the 2008 election between Clinton and Obama and no suspicious results were found in 2008, but were found in 2016. Hmm....

Conclusion

As we know, there has been a lot of suspicious data suggesting that perhaps the results were rigged or otherwise skewed toward Clinton. There has been significantly more funny business going on in areas without paper trails, particularly in primary states (relative to caucus states). There has been a lot of differences between exit polls and the results that arguably can't be explained by the margin of error, and these results only happened this election.

This whole process is shady as heck. Of course, this isn't a smoking gun where someone is being caught literally red handed, but there's enough evidence to be reasonably suspicious of the results. Personally, I think the whole thing was rigged. I already knew this and posted on this before, but people didn't trust the other source for some reason, well, now we have Stanford jumping on board. Boom.