2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumthe so-called "stanford study" from snopes:
now, can we shut up about this nonsense?
Fact Check Politics Ballot Box
Poll Position
Two researchers released a paper (not a study) examining whether primary election fraud that favored Hillary Clinton had occurred.
Kim LaCapria
Jun 15, 2016
Claim: A 2016 Stanford study revealed widespread primary election fraud in multiple states favoring Hillary Clinton.
Mixture
WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.
WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.
. . . .
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)These guys should get a job working for Trump.
niyad
(113,556 posts)BooScout
(10,406 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)niyad
(113,556 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Someone saying that it's a Stanford study is definitely wrong but snopes doesn't disprove the content of the paper and the authors are pretty straight forward in what it is.
The primaries are done and over and nothing including this will change the out come but that doesn't mean they are wrong. History will have the last answer.
niyad
(113,556 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)If I'm wrong please explain feel free to explain.
Snopes own judgment on the issue is "mixture".
niyad
(113,556 posts)WHAT'S TRUE: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)niyad
(113,556 posts)by, apparently, two stanford students. it was not peer-or academically reviewed. it is NOT what it claims to be. now, how hard is this to understand?
people are free to write anything they want. that does not make what they write true or valid, and that includes when it purports to be something it is NOT (in this case, supported by stanford as an actual study)
but, feel free to deny the truth of the lie of this paper.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But that doesn't make it fraud when clearly the authors of the papers never represent it as such and snopes verdict isn't even close to fraud.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)That's my study, and it is on equal footing because no one has checked or even witnessed my navel checking technique. By yhe way I found 3,000.000 votes for Clinton in there.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)skylucy
(3,743 posts)making me laugh so much!!! Hillary 2016
Number23
(24,544 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)And yet it claimed to be. It makes claims that are false.
That fits the definition of fraud, but if you prefer a monstrous lie bereft of even the smallest vestige of fact, that's. Okay to.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Then feel free but snopes own judgment doesn't say anything close to fraud.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Seen Standford underneath the authors name and ran with it. Fine but that's far from being a fraud. I think people who aren't used to reading academic papers might make the same mistake and attribute it to the respective universities. Still not an excuse tho.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)isn't real, is a fraud.
I have no problem saying that. Their intent is to mislead.
A study that begins by misrepresenting the origin of the study and lies about peer review is a fraud. They begin by misrepresenting themselves and the scientific authority of the study. Their intent is to mislead That is a fraud.
As to the global warming study, and there were many of them,we know the intent was to deny the validity of legitimate science so they could continue to make egregious profits.
We don't know why the people who published their study did it. They could be on Trump's payroll. They could be Sanders' Supporters who think they discovered something.
What we do know is that they start with a monstrous lie. That tells us they have no respect for the scientific method, peer review, other scientists, or the facts.
Sanders's supporters like and accept this because it justifies what they believe and gives it the aura of Scientific Evidence.
But it started with a lie, and those who care about facts and not just want to bolster their belief should call it what it is, a fraud.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Response to NWCorona (Reply #41)
Go Vols This message was self-deleted by its author.
randome
(34,845 posts)Inspiring, isn't it?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But the name change is new to me and if true does change things.
Where is that where it says that he didn't use his real name?
randome
(34,845 posts)They didn't even spell the name of -supposedly- their own university right!
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)and I had to go back and correct it after the fact. Regardless it should have definitely been corrected before submitting it lol!
I asked WhiteTara the same question and he answer seemed a little cryptic but I as for clarification as that would definitely change my mind on this.
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)The only interesting part is all of the fraud.
panader0
(25,816 posts)And that the study had not had a peer review. Big difference. The study may be totally true.
I'm sure these guys are no dummies. Facts are quite inconvenient to those who chose to deny them.
villager
(26,001 posts)...verification needed, etc.
All of which means is that every and any Democrat should be demanding more transparency and accountability in voting procedures, and vote counting, when and wherever it occurs.
niyad
(113,556 posts)BooScout
(10,406 posts)Beautiful sig line Boo.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)Yours is too!
nolabear
(41,991 posts)Were we always this nuts? Am I remembering incorrectly?
niyad
(113,556 posts)TwilightZone
(25,479 posts)Now, it gets a couple dozen recs and any debunking there is tends to get lost in the storm.
That being said, conspiracy theories have always been pretty popular here; they just weren't usually so focused on one of our candidates.
Squinch
(51,007 posts)essentially what the "study" said.)
TwilightZone
(25,479 posts)I understand seeing what one wants to see, but there comes a point when the obvious should find its way through once in a while. There are so many things wrong with the exit poll CTs that it's difficult to even know where to start.
Squinch
(51,007 posts)didn't give some of them pause.
I guess that's why we call it "blind" faith.
TwilightZone
(25,479 posts)Squinch
(51,007 posts)progressoid
(49,999 posts)Remember Fitzmas?
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)MineralMan
(146,331 posts)That does not mean that what everyone writes is true, well-researched, or even close to the truth.
Anyone can also publish any damned thing they want on the internet. That a piece of writing exists on the internet also does not lend any credibility to it.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)That is not the same as saying that its conclusion or methodology has been debunked. It has not been subjected to peer review and those who made the study do not have the earned credibility that Stanford as an institution does. So at this point one could possibly call it an "investigative lead" But the individuals involved have some academic training, and they presented the basis for their findings. They may be onto something or it could be wildly inaccurate, but sometimes it is "unknown people" like these who unearth information that runs contrary to previously accepted understandings. Agreed that nothing has yet been proven, nor have the findings themselves yet been debunked as far as I've seen reported so far.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)use his real name.
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)That's owning it, isn't it?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)strange read.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)go to the bottom of the home page, go to about and read
http://alexanderhiggins.com/about/
Okay, I did your work for you. Enjoy
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Thanks for the link and clarification!
obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)100%. I work in the field, and that is really, really bad, as is presenting it as a peer-reviewed, Stanford-backed study.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)who cares how real it is? Just as long as it a Clinton bashing post, it's all good.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)MineralMan
(146,331 posts)Someone should post it immediately, everywhere he or she can, because the more links to it, the truer it becomes.
niyad
(113,556 posts)sheshe2
(83,900 posts)MM~
MineralMan
(146,331 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)sheshe2
(83,900 posts)K&R!
niyad
(113,556 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Glaring election anomalies need and deserve thorough investigation.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)"Researchers" who refuse to be subjected to peer review are more accurately called quacks.
senz
(11,945 posts)Peer reviews are typically done prior to publication in academic journals. That takes time. If the studies are ongoing, then it will take quite a bit of time.
That does not invalidate the study's findings thus far.
TwilightZone
(25,479 posts)Nice to see people are posting about it before even looking at the thing.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Years from now, people will still be referencing this "study."
Squinch
(51,007 posts)mcar
(42,373 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)obamanut2012
(26,137 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)Once you graduate, nobody listens to you.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)sheshe2
(83,900 posts)Ace Rothstein
(3,183 posts)The Harvard of the West.
Squinch
(51,007 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Even this anvil.
RandySF
(59,225 posts)And coming from the left makes no more ethical than the shit we witnessed a few years ago.