Hillary Clinton and Electoral Fraud

Republicans shut down the polling sites in Arizona to save money, and also this was decided well before anyone knew Bernie would be a contender. Same with all the voter registry purges. Bernie is right that he attracted a lot of people who don't regularly vote... which explains why they weren't registered to vote. Another of his main supporter groups are college students, who have been being purged from voter rolls for years due to frequent mailing address changes (this happened to me in Pennsylvania in 2008). There are more logical explanations for this than can be mentioned here, Occam's Razor.

Same for exit polls. The author notes that Clinton voters were more likely to vote early, which would logically cause them to be under-represented in exit polls. Also the "enthusiasm gap". Also lots of people have written about how poor exit polls are at predicting outcomes (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-shou...). Exit polls are notoriously bad, which is why they're basically only fodder for the cable news industry.

Lots of very strong claims made without any evidence.

The fact that voting machines are insecure does not mean that fraud occurred.

> When an exit poll or two is outside the margin of error, it denotes failure in the polling; when eight defy it — egregiously so — that indicates systemic electoral fraud.

Or it indicates systemic problems in the methodology used to conduct exit polls, such as incorrect assumptions in sampling. The author suggests that the fact that exit polls of the Republican primaries were accurate means that exit polls of the Democratic primaries must also have been accurate. Given that Republican and Democratic voters tend to have very different demographics, I would question that assumption.

The author is holding up exit polling as a gold standard, but it took me about about five seconds of googling to find a long history of bad exit polls. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/outrage...

The author of this article acknowledges the possibility that the polls could just be wrong, but gets tripped up when the Republican polls seem to be more accurate than the Democratic polls -- and then concludes that the only explanation must be fraud.

I think what's really going on is that older voters and younger voters behave differently, affecting the accuracy of the polls for one set of voters more than the other.

Fivethirtyeight has explained away the exit poll issue very easily. Due to the way they are collected, they have an inherent bias toward young voters. Young voters are overwhelmingly pro Sanders. This results in the exit polls being biased towards Sanders. If this is the case, the margin of errors are worthless because they assume a representative sample.

The voter suppression thing is certainly a problem, but it is a big leap to say it is only a problem for Sanders or proves anything nefarious.

Why would Hillary need to rig anything? It's been pretty obvious that she's going to win the election since the start.

Regarding the author's points, he doesn't mention anything I find particularly compelling. Most of it seems to be built on shaky logic or draws weak connections between points. If the exit polls were really that big of an issue, we'd see political analysis (aka the experts) reporting on this.