Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland

29 Apr

Election Fraud:  Response to Joshua Holland

Richard Charnin
April 29,2016

Last week,  actor and activist Tim Robbins tweeted on the exit poll discrepancies. And the media presstitutes went after him with a vengeance. Joshua Holland wrote a response in The Nation. He followed  with another hit piece attacking Robbins, Prof. Bob Fitrakis, Lee Camp, Prof. Steven Freeman and myself: On Tim Robbins, election fraud and how nonsense spreads around the Internet.

Robbins responded to Holland in the Huffington Post.  Professor Bob Fitrakis flunked Holland in Social Science 101 (exit polls).  Comedian Lee Camp also responded on his website.   Professor Beth Clarkson defended my math proof. 

 Holland wrote: Monday, actor Tim Robbins caused a stir when he tweeted out a Facebook meme, charging that CNN and The New York Times are blind to a massive conspiracy going on right beneath their noses. It had close to 1,000 retweets when Robbins apparently deleted it.

A quick glance is enough to know that there are problems with the meme. The exit poll numbers are wrong. In Massachusetts, for example, CNN reported that exit polls showed Clinton winning by 2 points, which is very close to her 1.4 percent margin in the final results. In Alabama, CNN reports the exit polls showing Clinton with a 57-point margin, the Facebook meme claims it was 44.7 points, and the final result was 60.4 percent.

But where did Tim Robbins come up with these numbers? I decided to do a bit of reporting, and I ended up chasing this Facebook meme down a rabbit-hole of misinformation and conspiracism. It offers a pretty good case-study of how bullshit can come to dominate our online discourse.

The meme was created by Lee Camp, a political comedian who hosts a weekly show on RT, the Russian foreign news network. It has over 2,000 shares on Facebook as of this writing. Via email, I asked Camp for his source, and he pointed me to a post on Reddit by a user who goes by the handle “turn-trout.” Turn-trout, who didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, claims that these are unadjusted exit polls, and links to a spreadsheet purportedly showing wide discrepancies between the raw data and the final results.

Note: Lee Camp  responded to Holland.

The spreadsheet was created by Richard Charnin, who writes a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s spreadsheet appears to be the basis of a broad swath of viral Internet content alleging widespread election theft during the 2016 primaries, including the work of Free Press editors Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis Charnin seems to think that exit polls can reveal that virtually all our elections have been rigged, writing, “in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy.”

I exchanged some… interesting correspondence with Charnin. After calling me “very biased and misleading” for a recent piece, he claimed that “ALL exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote.” I asked him whether the exit poll data in his spreadsheet were unadjusted, and he said that they were the data released by major media organizations. He then told me that “the mainstream media won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD,” but it’s cool because “Tim Robbins just talked about it.” Finally, the truth emerges.

Virtually all of these claims are based on the idea that exit polls are a telltale sign of fraud. In a follow-up tweet, Tim Robbins explained that, “exit polls are historically pretty accurate,” and “are a heads-up on vote tampering.” Turn-trout agrees, writing, “Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against, and rough indicator of, the degree of election fraud.”

This is also the basis of claims by Wasserman and Fitrakis – who point to the precision of German exit polling to emphasize the point – and Steven Freeman, a Penn State psychologist who authored the book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count.

(Note:  Steve Freeman is not a psychologist. He holds a PhD from MIT’s Sloan School of Management where he teaches research methods and survey design).

So there you have it. They say a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on, and that’s especially true of the internet. Here we have an example of an actor citing a comedian who picked up a claim from an an anonymous Reddit user citing preliminary exit poll data put together by a JFK conspiracy theorist. Bringing it all full circle is The Hill, which ran a story titled, “Actor Tim Robbins blames Sanders losses on ‘voter fraud,’” which will no doubt be shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter.

Last week, I attempted to debunk allegations of widespread election fraud by the Clinton campaign that have been swirling around on social media. My argument was an appeal to common sense: If Hillary Clinton entered the race with a very large lead in the national polls and an enormous amount of support from Democratic Party activists and elected officials, as she did, and then quickly built up a significant lead in pledged delegates, as she did, then at no time since the start of the race, regardless of how unscrupulous her campaign might be, would there be any rational motive for risking infamy by rigging the vote. You don’t need to cheat when you’re winning.

(Note:Holland criticized  Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserstein, both well-respected and prominent activists who have written books on Election Fraud). 

He wroteThat didn’t sit well with Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis, whose earlier piece for The Free Press, “Is the 2016 election already being stripped & flipped?,” I had mentioned briefly in the column. They’ve now published a lengthy broadside accusing me, and The Nation, of not being able to handle the truth when it comes to “election theft.” (It’s an odd charge, given that my Nation colleague Ari Berman has done some of the best reporting in the country on vote suppression.)

It’s unfortunate that Wasserman and Fitrakis didn’t engage my argument (or link to my piece so that readers might judge it for themselves). Instead, they waved away the idea that looking at motive is a legitimate way of evaluating the likelihood that a crime has been committed, writing that the argument was “a bit hard to follow.”

Fitrakis and Wasserman join these very serious problems with innuendo and thin evidence to claim that virtually all elections, including the 2016 primaries, are rigged. They dismiss those of us who don’t buy their claims as being incapable of handling the truth. But skepticism goes both ways, and true skeptics require more concrete evidence than Fitrakis and Wasserman are able to offer.

My response: Holland called it a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism”.   I have concluded based on 15 years of posting that when a naysayer uses the conspiracy meme, he will invariably proceed with misinformation and factual omission. And that is exactly what Holland did.

Joshua does not mention my two masters degrees in applied mathematics and that I have followed presidential elections since 1952.  He  referred to me as a  JFK Conspiracy Theorist, as if that disqualifies me from analyzing election fraud. That was a big mistake; he  apparently believes the thoroughly debunked Single Bullet Theory. That says it all. Joshua failed to do his homework on the mathematical analysis of election fraud and JFK witness deaths. He totally exposed himself as an incompetent researcher.

Holland said that the exit poll results are “wrong”.  Really? What was the basis for that statement?  He has obviously not viewed the data downloaded from CNN. Holland called the numbers “bullshit”.  His article is biased and misleading – a permanent stain on whatever credibility he has. He cannot  fool serious researchers who are aware of the facts  and  the math that prove election fraud.

Holland interviewed  Joe Lenski of Edison Research, the polling firm . But he failed to get Lenski to explain why exit pollsters force a match to the recorded vote – even if the recorded vote is bogus.  Lenski  does not logically explain why ALL exit polls are matched to the recorded vote counts.  He has never provided a rationale for the match. Of course Lenski works for the Corporate Media (the National Election Pool). Holland fails to see the significance of that. He never considers that the recorded vote may be fraudulent. In fact, he never mentions the F-word – nor does anyone else in the corporate media. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

Holland wrote that  Lenski stressed that “pre-election polls are also adjusted to conform their samples to what pollsters know about the populations they’re trying to measure. The irony of all of this is that the adjusted data are far more accurate than the raw data”.

 Are we supposed to take that comment seriously? Apparently Holland does.  If that is the case why won’t the pollsters show us the raw exit poll data in all the precincts polled? And how did they end up with an exact 0.01% match to the recorded vote in the CT primary? Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

Holland needs to study the historical evidence of systemic election fraud

1988-2008 Presidential Exit Polls

In spreadsheets linked from my blog, I provide 1988-2008 historical presidential vote and unadjusted exit poll data.  The Democrats led the exit polls by 52-42% but led the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the 8% discrepancy is one in trillions. Holland does not have a clue about Probability and Statistics 101. He does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy.  The data is available if he would care to truly investigate. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

The data shows that 135 of 274 state presidential exit polls from 1988-2008 exceeded the margin of error – and 131 moved in a “redshift” to the GOP. The probability is ZERO: E-116. That’s 116 zeros after the decimal. Holland does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy. He fails to see the significance of that fact.

The primaries

Sanders has won 12 of 13 caucuses, but only 6 of 27 primaries. Election fraud anomalies were apparent in NY MA IL AZ IA NV OH DE WY WI MO DE MI AL TN GA AR TX. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders led hand-counted precincts in Massachusetts   by 17%, while machine counted precincts went to Clinton by 2%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

The CNN NY Primary exit poll indicated that  Sanders had 48% (officially he had 42.1%). But he may have done better than 48% since ALL exit polls are adjusted throughout the day  to the recorded vote. And hundreds of thousands of voters were disenfranchised  when their registrations were flipped or dropped altogether. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

There was an 11.8% discrepancy between the NY exit poll  (52-48%) and the recorded vote (57.9-42.1%). The probability of the discrepancy is 1 in 120,000. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share declined from the poll to the vote in 21 of 23 exit polls.
The probability P = 1 in 30,000 = binomdist(2,23,0.5,true).  Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 9 of the 23 primaries. The probability of this result being due to chance:
P= 1 in 441 million = 1-BINOMDIST( 8,23,0.025,false). Holland fails to see the significance of that.

As usual, in the recent CT, MD and PA primaries, the exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. The differences between Clinton’s 2-party adjusted exit poll share and the recorded share were: CT .01%;  MD 0.10%;  PA -.17%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

This is how the Pollsters forced a match to the Indiana recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

The mainstream media (including The Nation) won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD. They never discuss malicious, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators that were built to flip the votes. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Will Holland look at the evidence which proves that the primaries are being stolen from Sanders and write about it?

Fitrakis and Wasserman responded: In 2016, the first thing to face is the massive disenfranchisement of millions of voters, mostly citizens of color and youth. We are heartened to see Bernie and Hillary joined together in an Arizona lawsuit.But the long lines and urban registration stripping that we saw in Phoenix, Madison, and elsewhere this spring will spell doom for the Democrats if they cannot guarantee their constituencies’ the right to vote in November.

At this point, we’re not optimistic. The efforts at re-enfranchisement are little and late. Among those doing superb work on this stripping of our voter rolls are the great Greg Palast (, Ari Berman of The Nation, and others.But the electronic flipping of the alleged vote count remains a demon black box. The 2000 election was turned from Gore to Bush by electronic manipulations in Volusia County, Florida. The 2004 election was turned from Kerry to Bush in a Chattanooga basement which transformed a 4.2% Democratic lead into a 2.5% GOP victory in 90 dark minutes. All that could happen again in 2016.

Over the years we’ve respected the work of The Nation’s Josh Holland, who’s expressed concern about our reporting on indications of irregularities that seem to favor Hillary over Bernie. But our stated conclusions on them remain far from conclusive. If we thought we had definitive evidence that the Clinton campaign was stealing the nomination from the Sanders campaign, we’d say so in direct, explicit and unmistakable phrases.Simply put: we do NOT at this point believe they rise to the level of provable theft, as we are certain was the case in 2000 and 2004. We understand concerns and welcome the dialogue. But we’d like to avoid the usual circular firing squad. Writing in The Nation, Josh has deemed it important to mention disagreements with our former collaborator Steve Rosenfeld, and our good friend Mark Hertsgaard. Mark’s writing on global warming has been legend. In 2004 he criticized some of our reporting on the Ohio vote count. We disagreed with him then and still do. Nothing in the past 12 years of our research and writing while based in central Ohio has surfaced that would make us change our reporting on how the 2004 election was stolen. Quite the opposite.

But other comments on the nature of electronic election theft throw up a HUGE red flag. And here we worry about a dangerous gap in the work from The Nation and the left as a whole. If international election standards were applied to the 2016 primaries, eight states – Georgia, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, New York, Tennessee – would be investigated for suspected fraudulent election results, because the actual vote deviates so greatly from the exit polls. Also, the exit polls indicated that Sanders won in Illinois, Massachusetts and Missouri. The e bottom line is this: there is no viable method for monitoring or verifying the electronic vote count in 2016. In a close race, which we expect this fall, the outcome could be flipped in key swing states where GOP governors and secretaries of state are running the elections. This includes most notably Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona, plus North Carolina and Florida (where the situations are slightly different). Steve has called this “a stretch.” He and Josh seem to dismiss the assertion that an election can be electronically stolen as “conspiracy theory,” apparently based on the idea that such thefts would become obvious fodder for an infuriated media and public outrage.This we find this overly trusting and dangerous. Under our current system there is no way to counter-indicate a stolen electronic vote count except by exit polling, for which Josh has expressed contempt. Exit polls in other countries (especially Germany) are highly reliable; here the raw data is too, but can be hard to get. And it’s now standard procedure to have the public numbers “adjusted” to fit official vote counts, fraudulent or otherwise.And even raw data exit polls have no legal standing. —–

Cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore told the Free Press that the computer configuration was set up to allow a “man in the middle attack” to alter Ohio’s votes.The late night shift in the 2004 electronic vote count in 10 decisive swing states was by all accounts a “virtual statistical impossibility,” with the odds against that happening in the millions. But now we are being told the idea that this could indicate a stolen election is “conspiracy theory.” PLEASE!!! If someone – anyone! – can demonstrate EXACTLY how the electronic vote count will be monitored, verified and made clear to the media in 2016, and then guarantee that the public and the courts will react with enforceable fury, we will be eternally grateful.We hope in the meantime The Nation will add to Ari Berman’s fine reporting on the stripping of voter eligibilities an in-depth investigation into the “other shoe” of election theft – the flipping of the electronic vote count. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) raised the “Diebold question” at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing on April 21, 2016. Johnson noted how easy it would be to hack the old voting machines, many that are over 20 years old, and vowed to introduce legislation that would make voting secure.

Finally, we are often asked how, if the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, Obama won in 2008 and 2012. We did, after all, write in 2004 that the 2008 election was being rigged. The answer is simple: it was. But Obama won by far too many votes to have that election credibly stolen. And his campaign was not in denial.  We are happy to hear from Steve that our reporting on Ohio 2004 might have enhanced Obama’s scrutiny on the 2008 vote count. But it should be made clear that Obama’s victory could easily have been flipped had the vote count been closer and had fewer states been so definitively won. We believe he actually won by more than 10 million votes in both 2008 and 2012, but was officially credited with far less.

Where, exactly, is the line beyond which an election can’t be stolen? Do the Democrats need to win by 5%… 10%… to get an official victory? And what then happens to the down-ballot races? We prefer not to see those limits tested again.  And we need to have people prepared to take tangible action. In 2012 Bob Fitrakis filed a successful Election Day lawsuit preventing illegal computer patches being rigged into Ohio’s electronic machines. In a closer race, those patches might have made the difference. We believe the expectation that they would work did cause Karl Rove to do his legendary flipped-out double-take on Fox News as he was told Mitt Romney had lost Ohio. We also reported (as did The Nation) that voting machines in key Cincinnati precincts were financially linked to the Romney family. We each wrote separate articles about that and were each blacklisted by Daily Kos for doing so, even though the vast bulk of Harvey’s 150+ previous blogs on that site were about nuclear power and renewable energy. Some publications that aren’t progressive understand the problem.

Twenty-three minutes into the 2012 Election Day, Forbes took the Free Press reporting seriously, and warned voters of the dangers of private, for-profit companies owning and maintaining voting machines. Over the years we’ve been repeatedly told that we should stop reporting on electronic election theft because it might discourage voter turnout. And that the key to a Democratic victory in 2016 will be another massive vote count victory that will be “too big to steal.” Frankly, we don’t see that happening this year. And we find such talk deeply disturbing.

We have no doubt that innumerable US House and Senate races have been stolen over the years, along with governorships, control of state legislatures, referenda and more, all of it producing a deep reinforcement of the corporate control of our government. We’re also reasonably certain that neither Hillary nor Bernie is likely to amass in November a margin of victory over either Ryan or Trump that would be big enough to negate the possibility of massive disenfranchisement and electronic vote flipping in key states like Ohio, Michigan, Iowa or Arizona. And anyway … why the hell are we even thinking about leaving such a problem unsolved?

This disease needs a definitive cure. We look forward to further reasoned and reasonable dialogue. We invite Josh and Ari to join us on our panel at the upcoming Left Forum in New York in May. We welcome a public discussion with Steve and Mark in California.Above all, we hope to see those millions of Bernie supporters joining us at the reactor sites, the banks, the women’s health centers, the shelters, the schools and so many other critical hot spots in our corporate-plagued society, no matter who wins (or how) in November.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of six books on election integrity, including the new Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft( and Bob’s Fitrakis Files are at Harvey’s Organic Spiral of US History is coming soon at

The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Inline image

I challenge Holland to try to refute  the data and analysis in these books:
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-Election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

 Perhaps Holland will learn something and see the significance of these posts:…/1988-2008-unadjuste…/




Posted by on April 29, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

41 responses to “Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland

  1. Bruce Sargent

    April 29, 2016 at 11:44 am

    Well written. Well reasoned. If it were me, I would drop the “libel” word on Joshua Holland. There are limits to unreasonable misrepresentation in the press, which are matters of law.

    • CarolB in Mpls.

      May 3, 2016 at 3:59 am

      Considering the extent to which various outlets, including MSNBC, have gone to label the Sanders team liars with regard to the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) and the DNC’s false and highly public charge that a former Sanders staffer (recommended, by the way ,by the DNC) “stole” proprietary voter data and the “strategic road map” from the Clinton campaign during the NGP-Van data “breach” in December, I doubt anyone in corporate media is concerned about “libel”.

      In light of recent reporting by Politico on the HVF and also in light of the DNC’s claims having been proven “false”, MSM has yet to retract those slanders. Even Politico had to back down on its earlier reporting on Clooney’s statements given the FEC filings and consequent “open letter” to the DNC from the Sanders attorney Brad Deutsch in regard to those filings. They specifically point to the HVF’s direct funneling of funds into Hillary for America campaign efforts instead of safeguarding them for the benefit of state parties who collected them. Per Politico, some (still anonymous for fear of retribution) party apparatchiks are publicly complaining in print, but we haven’t seen any of these officials on our TV screens, nor are they likely to be named. Not that CNN or MSNBC would give them a fair hearing, in any case.

    • CarolB in Mpls.

      May 3, 2016 at 4:03 am

      Richard, above you list MI twice:

      “Sanders has won 12 of 13 caucuses, but only 6 of 27 primaries. Election fraud anomalies were apparent in NY MA IL AZ IA NV OH DE WY WI MI MO DE MI AL TN GA AR TX.”

      Thought you might want to correct.

      Great work!

    • Mike Johnson

      May 4, 2016 at 10:43 pm

      Hi, Mr. Charnin-
      I and my brother were very worried about your voting vs. polling discrepancies, me being a Bernie supporter.
      So he, as a math user, looked into some of the numbers on your Spreadsheet, on the Massachusetts voting site at the Boston Globe:

      It seems that perhaps you used Google Docs, to import data to your XLS sheet.

      But we have just noticed a systematic error in the Google Docs process, that it DROPS the first digit in some numbers !
      See the yellow figures in the tables, attached XLS.

      Hope this helps ! I am not sure how it affects your results.
      I could send the XLS sheet if I had your email.

      Here are some errors it seems:

      Globe figures:
      Sanders Clinton Other Total
      Worcester 11,616 12,132 316 24,064

      Your figures:
      Worcester 1,616 2,132 16 3,764

      Mass Totals:

      TOTAL 586,716 603,784 14,427 1,204,927

      Your table:
      TOTAL 576,016 574,374 9,927 1,160,317

      I would be very interested to see if this is an actual error, and how it affects the Clinton bias !
      Mike Johnson

      • Richard Charnin

        May 5, 2016 at 12:18 am


        I will check the numbers. I am aware that my data is incomplete.
        I will replace the Worcester numbers with yours.

      • Richard Charnin

        May 5, 2016 at 12:47 am

        Thanks for the info.
        It is not a problem with Google.

        I fixed the Worcester vote data.
        The problem was that the original precinct data came down in a form I had to adjust for all precincts.
        This involve some manual data entry, That’s why I got Worcester wrong.
        See the right side of the sheet.

        The dataset I downloaded was 99% complete.
        I indicate the total votes for the incomplete data in row 5.
        I show the full recorded vote in row 6.

        Precincts Total Sanders Clinton Other Sanders Clinton Other
        5. Database 1,180,617 586,016 584,374 10,227 49.64% 49.50% 0.87%
        6. Recorded 1,204,927 586,716 603,784 14,427 48.69% 50.11% 1.20%

      • Mike Johnson

        May 5, 2016 at 5:41 pm

        Happy to help !
        BTW, the Mass total votes from the Globe were 10k and 30k off from your values, I think? So there may be more errors than just the examples we saw ?…
        Thanks for your analysis ! After 2004,
        I am very leery about voting machines and Republican vote suppression or fraud !

        Is it true that a well done exit poll would have an error distributed about zero, of the (poll prediction % – official vote %) ? Or is this just wishful thinking on my part ? LOL.

  2. Bruce Sargent

    April 29, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    John Kevin Hunt, attorney, helped us write our proposed resolution I think that he would be okay to read this Holland piece and your response and write Holland a note requiring him to cease and desist libelous comment…Holland at FB….if you chose to drop Kevin a note, remind him that you were the science behind the legislation he wrote and perhaps mention my name as a way of connection…

  3. Bev

    April 29, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    If you google “Tim Robbins election fraud” the first pages have flipped “election fraud” to “voter fraud” which blames the voters. They, who support evidence-free, unproven elections, have a lot of practice “flipping” and victim blaming. They, who hate democracy, should not be our leaders. They want to rule no matter what it takes. They also want to rule no matter how badly they rule. This is the horror they are capable of.:

    If we assume that things are going to continue as they have we can predict that by 2032, 80% of the boys born, will end up on the autism spectrum, half the children, 80% of the boys.

    CDC scientist ADMITTED Center’s cover-up of vaccine/autism link

    The first thing that Thompson did was to plot a graph. Now if there is no link between early MMR and autism, those two lines should track together, and they do track together until they get to 15 months. Then they separate, and they continue to separate thereafter. And, they sliced and diced the data in an effort to get rid of that effect.

    Relative risk of receiving an autism diagnosis was astronomical.

    Doren Granpeesheh, PhD, BCBA,
    Founder, Center for Autism and Related Disorders:
    In 1978 the prevalence of autism was about 1 in 15,000 children

    Stephanie Senese,PhD
    MIT, Senior Research Scientist:
    If we assume that things are going to continue as they have we can predict that by 2032, 80% of the boys born, will end up on the autism spectrum, half the children, 80% of the boys.

    Why the CDC is terrified of VAXXED—and used “the liberal media” to kill it (MUST-READ!)
    Why is the CDC Petrified of the Film Vaxxed?
    By Richard Gale and Gary Null

    We need our democracy to get rid of such horrible leaders.

    • Richard Charnin

      April 29, 2016 at 6:42 pm


      Let’s not make too much of Tim Robbins’ use of “voter fraud”.
      We all know what he was talking about – the machines.

      • Bev

        April 29, 2016 at 10:48 pm

        Oh pardon me, I had thought that Robbins had said “election fraud” and that google’s list of news sites that were reporting on this story had flipped it to “voter fraud”. And, I would agree with you that if Tim Robbins said “voter fraud” given his context of trying to help prove our democracy, we would know what he meant.

  4. Allen Shockley

    April 29, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Your probability figures (exit polls versus actual votes) include all early votes as well? Exit polling CAN be an indicator, it doesn’t mean they always are. No one has ever been elected on the basis of a very small percentage of actual voters who feel like answering questions on the way out of the polls.Claiming something is true does not make it so.

    I have asked this question elsewhere, without getting an answer. So lets try it again with someone who clearly invests in facts.

    How is it that the Clinton campaign can be so all powerful in some states and districts while failing miserably in so many others? Look at the results just n New York. Michigan, and all other states and caucuses that Bernie has won. Why was there no claims of election fraud in those contests? Because Sanders won a generally accepted to be fair (but still error prone) result. Only in districts where Clinton has a proven demographic advantage does this charge of election fraud come up. Even in places where Bernie Sanders pre-election polls showed a distinct disadvantage there were no doubts that he organized a better campaign and turnout of his voters. Further these claims of fraud and theft do not come from his campaign or the candidate. Because he knows how this process works.

    I readily admit there are problems, hell it is even possible there may be bad actors involved. I continue to say investigate irregularities, incompetence and potential fraud, New York and Arizona need some attention in these areas.

    I remember 2000 and 2004 like it was yesterday. I also remember the culprits and victims. I also remember those efforts were concentrated where they would be most effective in low margin swing states during the general election. Also known as where the risk/reward ratio was most favorable. Not in the primaries where in districts where the demographics already favor the candidate who won. Certainly not in tiny states where the tiny 21 delegate haul is split with a net 3 delegate difference. It is inconceivable that risk/reward ratio is worth the effort.

    The explanation from the AP passes all reasonable inspection.The story told about Robbin’s tweet is not factually inaccurate. It is just embarrassing which is why Robbin’s pulled it.

    I support all efforts at monitoring and verification (because I too lived the results of the 2000 and 2004 “results:) But I also support reason and facts over knee jerk meme related outrage.

    I also encourage people to consider the harm in disillusioning this mass of new voters right back out of the system by claiming there votes don’t matter and their candidate had their election stolen. As you stated Obama won by sheer force of numbers and the best way to prevent election fraud and theft is to overwhelm the opposition with votes not complaints. Mobilize, and Inspire.

    • Richard Charnin

      April 29, 2016 at 6:59 pm

      Thanks for informing me that no one has ever been elected based on exit polls.
      I calculated the probabilities based on the public data.
      Do you have a problem with that?
      The exit poll is based strictly on exit poll respondents.
      My probability figures for exit polls (like NY) are based on the discrepancy in the exit poll from the recorded vote using the Normal Distribution.
      The probability of 20 of 22 exit polls declining from Sanders in the poll to the vote is based on the Binomial distribution.

      • Logan

        May 4, 2016 at 11:05 am

        With the raw exit poll data being unavailable, what method do you use to determine your discrepancy from the exit polls? Do you extrapolate numbers based on respondent percentages?

        Near-unadjusted polls were available from CNN.
        I said “near” because they have already been adjusted throughout the day.
        Those are the numbers I used. See the tables in my posts.

        Of course, the final grand adjustment is made to match the recorded vote.
        I do not extrapolate. I calculate the difference between the slightly adjusted numbers at closing and the final adjustment to match the recorded vote.
        I calculate the margin of error for each poll, adding 30% cluster factor which is standard for exit polls.
        I then determine the probability that n polls would fall outside the MoE.

  5. JoAnn Chateau

    April 29, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    I admire your tenacity to track it all down!

  6. Kip Humphrey

    April 29, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    Richard, I have a few things for your awareness and to investigate:
    1. State Central Electronic Voter Registration software that integrates with (and subsequently require) GEM$ state central vote tabulation software, federally funded and installed for the 2016 election cycle:
    also this for new York:
    2. Hillary operatives infiltration Sanders campaign staff and sabotaged Bernie’s campaign ground game in several key states:

    I’m still on DU but not sure how much longer, then JPR. keep the faith! Kip Humphrey

    • Richard Charnin

      April 29, 2016 at 7:56 pm

      Thanks, Kip. Good to hear from you.
      Are you on Facebook?
      I would like to add you to the FB group: “Election Fraud: The Matrix of Deceit”

  7. Allen Shockley

    April 30, 2016 at 4:56 am

    I came here to have a meaningful discussion. You insult me. I respond directly to the content of your comment and re-ask the question. You respond by removing your insult (as well as your condescending and shameless self promotion) from the end of your response, and then you delete my response. Presumably because it contained unflattering facts and easily verifiable statistics.

    From this I can only infer that you are in fact very adept at editing out unwanted information in your analysis. The selection bias at work.

    I understand that this is your (promotional) website and I understand the need to moderate comments. Moderation however, is not censorship.

    I made no insult to you or your work (other than to decline the offer to purchase your books) I simply used an abstract example of exit polls to show how an obviously false conclusion can easily been drawn. I also understand that you will remove this comment as soon as you see it.

    Surely you could have just as easily thrown a couple of technical statistic analysis terms at me to show you are far more qualified than I to discuss the claims you made, but then you would have to leave those numbers for all to see.

    My sibling has a saying that goes like this. “If you don’t like the truth, then change it.” When he uses it, it is a call to action to affect your future behavior to enable a truth you would feel more comfortable accepting. But I suppose just removing uncomfortable truths from view is a way to go too.

    Thanks though, You have provided the evidence I need to judge your trustworthiness as an arbiter of facts. Sometimes first impressions are correct, even so I don’t like to judge without evidence.

    Have a good day, and good luck.

  8. Richard Charnin

    April 30, 2016 at 11:11 am

    Yes, I deleted my uncalled for comments. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent.
    But I took offense in your lecturing me that exit polls have never been used to count the votes.
    No kidding?

    As far as your characterization of my “selection bias” is concerned, I also take offense in your questioning my integrity as a researcher. I may may not be as perfect as you would like, but I NEVER fudge data.

    I AM COMMITTED TO THE BEST ANALYSIS POSSIBLE. Sometimes that means making assumptions which are covered in SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.

    • Allen Shockley

      May 1, 2016 at 4:34 am

      I hardly call stating a fact as a lecture. If you admit that they are not used for determining the outcome of the election, how can you make claims that the primary was stolen based on the same admittedly small and error prone numbers?

      Here let’s play another game, you are the statistician. Based on an average of polls conducted last September or October or November (you select) what is the statistical probability of Senator Sanders winning the primaries (or districts) he has won? Those odds are no doubt astronomical. And yet, here we are with statistically improbable but actual results.

      You must admit (based on your own observations and conclusions) that either virtually every election you have studied and written about contain more than a few statistical anomalies that you are satisfied “prove” election theft/fraud going back more than 10yrs it seems.

      I suggest that this indicates one of two probable conclusions.
      A) Every Election has been rigged by the winner
      B) Your model is not accurate enough to “prove” any such thing.

      I tend to fall into camp B.
      That is not to say there are not or has not been election fraud in some instances, just that exit polls do not “prove” it in anywhere near as a certainty as you claim.


      Then perhaps you should commit to peer reviewed analysis and submit your work to respected peer reviewed publications. It would certainly go a long way to improving your accuracy. Although it would slow down the publishing of your books.

      _I also take offense in your questioning my integrity as a researcher_
      I appreciate you not insulting me this time.

      “From this I can only infer that you are in fact very adept at editing out unwanted information in your analysis. The selection bias at work”
      I am assuming this is what causes you take offense, but why? Shouldn’t a researcher or scientist expect to have their integrity questioned, especially when you do not show and refuse to explain your conclusions?

      If you do not want to encourage this inference, Then do not delete data, instead explain your position. You should be able to do so,. I purposefully gave a super simplified example that should have been child’s play to refute and explain away.

      Turns out though Like Tim Robbins, erasing embarrassing items is easier than explaining the foundations of your belief in your conclusions.

      Certainly you have the right to edit your comments if you felt they were made in haste or as an emotional reaction. I just don’t see why you felt it necessary to remove mine, nor answer the questions raised therein.

  9. Bev

    April 30, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Exit Poll Gate or is it ExitPollGate…both very good messaging.
    I clicked on Lee Camp’s pingback above which I am glad is here since Lee is a big part of this story about exit polls, NO Evidence e-voting machines, Tim Robbins, and because he has been a longtime advocate for a provable democracy. What a perfect meme he created, EXIT POLL GATE.

    My Response To Being Attacked By Josh Holland In Raw Story Concerning #ExitPollGate

    I want to take a moment to respond to a recent hit piece against me by Joshua Holland in Raw Story.

    It involves a meme I created that the actor Tim Robbins then retweeted. The meme shows the difference between the exit polls in several states and the results given by the voting machines. I and many others believe the massive difference in the numbers is due to election fraud, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

    • Bev

      April 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm

      Twitter time: #ExitPollGate

  10. Allen Shockley

    May 1, 2016 at 5:18 am

    Can you explain how your results are calculated based on this information?


    For primaries, it’s the same procedure that we use for a general election. In New Hampshire, we had 45 precincts. You have one interviewer at each of those precincts duirng the day, from when the polls open to shortly before the polls close. They will be assigned an interviewing rate; we don’t interview every person. It depends on the size of the polling place. We tell them to talk to every third voter or every fifth voter or whatever. Our goal is to conduct between 100 and 150 interviews at every polling location on election day.

    While everyone is talking about the Democratic side, we went out at 9 o’clock saying that Donald Trump was going to get 58 percent of the vote. He got just about 60 percent of the vote. Everything we did on the Republican side hit the mark. I understand when the data moves as much as the Democratic data moved between 9 o’clock and 9:45, that causes a lot of consternation out there. But there are plenty of other states where we’ve been right on.

    It’s a survey like any other survey. There are sampling issues, there are non-response issues, etc. We’re making the adjustments we can to make this data as accurate as we can with the incomplete information that we have.

    For those of you who don’t read the article the source for this info is

    Joe Lenski, executive vice president of Edison Media Research. Since 2003, Edison has been conducting polling for the National Election Pool (NEP), a group of six media organizations that includes Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and the Associated Press. Once upon a time, each of those organizations would have run their own exit polling; now, it’s centralized through Edison.

    100 to 150 interviews per precinct, not respondents, interviews and not every precinct.

    “Typically we’ll get a 40 to 50 percent response rate”

    This sample size is so, so, so small. That is why they are adjusted throughout the day with actual vote totals.

    You are starting with EXTREMELY flawed data. One would expect some indication in your analysis of this fact.

    • jonathan fraser

      May 3, 2016 at 1:06 pm

      Mr. Shockley,

      Did you even read the article above. This would be a response on Edison | Lenski from above.

      “Edison Research

      Holland interviewed Joe Lenski of Edison Research, the polling firm . But he failed to get Lenski to explain why exit pollsters force a match to the recorded vote – even if the recorded vote is bogus. Lenski does not logically explain why ALL exit polls are matched to the recorded vote counts. He has never provided a rationale for the match. Of course Lenski works for the Corporate Media (the National Election Pool). Holland fails to see the significance of that. He never considers that the recorded vote may be fraudulent. In fact, he never mentions the F-word – nor does anyone else in the corporate media. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

      Holland wrote that Lenski stressed that “pre-election polls are also adjusted to conform their samples to what pollsters know about the populations they’re trying to measure. The irony of all of this is that the adjusted data are far more accurate than the raw data”.

      Are we supposed to take that comment seriously? Apparently Holland does. If that is the case why won’t the pollsters show us the raw exit poll data in all the precincts polled? And how did they end up with an exact 0.01% match to the recorded vote in the CT primary? Holland fails to see the significance of that. ”

      As an independent, and to this point, objective, observer, you are clearly motivated by making a point against both the possibility and probability of election fraud, in terms of this 2016 cycle.

      “Methinks thou dost protest too much”

      These elections translate into massive wealth streams for those funding the hundreds of millions passing through these campaigns. While Sanders millions come from individuals, a clear diagram of the money supporting Clinton, shows distinct connections with the media, insurance, military-defense, lobbyists of all persuasions, finance, and yes, includes those who make electronic vote counting machines.

      We live at a moment, when the hubris of an existing system exists, challenged by a digital connectedness that did not exist in the last two election cycles.

      We have major media screenshots of reported votes, changing, impossibly ( not just dramatically ).

      Trust is required, for our currency and our system of self-governance to exist.

      Everyone of us should be alarmed at the reactions of officials throughout the localities and higher offices, when they are confronted by these ‘irregularities’ and more blatant examples of fraud.


      Jonathan Fraser

  11. JD

    May 1, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    I looked at the table from the Reddit thread, here:

    I regressed the Difference (in Clinton’s favor) on the percent African American in each state, from here: (I didn’t include Arizona, because it is clearly an outlier, with its own story.)

    The result is an R^2 of 0.33, and a coefficient that suggests that each extra pct point of African American population leads to a third of a point error in Clinton’s favor. This suggests that one possible explanation for the exit poll discrepancy (and why it only affects Democrats) is that exit polls systematically under-poll African Americans — which in and of itself, is very plausible.

    More generally, I would guess that various discriminated-against minorities are under-counted by exit polls (just as they are in telephone polls), and that this effect is particularly pronounced when there is a large difference in appeal to these minorities between two candidates.

    But I’m not a complete skeptic! For instance, this theory does not explain general-election discrepancies. However, that fact doesn’t mean that it doesn’t provide a fairly plausible explanation for what’s going on in this Democratic primary.

    • W. Benson

      May 5, 2016 at 11:43 am

      I recalculated the coefficient of regression for JD`s data. This gave a 0.38% increase in discrepancy for each 1% increase in African American population. May suggest that political graft is stronger in poorer or more machine-controlled precincts, especially in the South.

  12. Bruce Sargent

    May 2, 2016 at 11:47 am

    I added this comment to Joshua Holland’s story on election fraud in THE RAW STORY:
    At the risk of irritating all here, I would like to add a brief historical perspective to our discussion as well as place it in contemporary political context:
    Galileo argued that there were not glass spheres which held heavenly bodies and moved them across the sky. He had seen moons of Jupiter orbit through his telescope which cried out for new thinking. He was told in counter argument that his perception was nonsense. The specks he saw were specks in the glass lens of the telescope. Common sense said the earth was stationary. Common sense said, that if one jumped up it did not rotate underneath one, causing one to land in a different place, so of course it wasn’t rotating. All things of heaven rotated about the earth. Again, as a matter of common sense, the,earth was not moving because none could sense the movement. Now just because an idea is wrong doesn’t mean that it is not useful. As a young man, in naval service, centuries after Galileo, I watched navigation plots taken with sextant readings twice a day as the ship moved about in the sea with an analysis based on mathematical assumptions of a static earth centering the heavens.
    Reasoning from common sense, rather than from mathematics and science, can easily lead to a false perspective of what is going on. Einstein phrased it politely in seminar: “He doesn’t know,. that he doesn’t know.”
    Richard Charnin presents clear and inescapable mathematical and scientific evidence that many US election have been fraudulent. Mathematics argues that on a practical level, he has a zero chance of being wrong.
    The brunt of his analysis reveals that Republicans have benefited from fraudulent elections, the work of black box flipping and voters rights stripping. The US now has a Republican majorities in legislative bodies and has Republicans in the executive branches of government as a result of this process. Think Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin to understand what election fraud brings us. It is in the interest of Democrats and Progressives to reform elections through removing the voting process from the vote flipping black box voting machines as well as vote flipping tabulators. Legislation is needed to make elections transparent again, paper ballots, hand counts or hand counts to create a sample to check tabulations. Legislation is needed as well, that makes states responsible for securing registration data, on penalty and cost of vacating the election and running it anew.
    Now the inconvenient facts of Clinton’s campaign behaving in a Republican manner (stealing elections rather than winning them) have been brought forward by Mr Charnin. His analysis in this case is as right as his analysis of earlier Republican stolen elections. He is right to a certainty with a zero chance of being wrong. Mr Holland’s arguments to the contrary, unfortunately fall in line with the extreme right wing of the the Republican Party, and serve to block necessary election reform going ahead, for if nothing is wrong, as Mr Holland asserts, why go through the expense and trouble of reform. I see Mr Holland’s arguments as distractions from observing reality (“the specks you see through your telescope are specks in the lens” sorts of argument) that avoid the essential. But more importantly, I see them as arguments that favor the extreme and Republican right in our country, whose governance has has been tragic for ordinary people.

  13. rebot

    May 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Great analysis! “Data” is plural, no?

    • Anonymous

      May 2, 2016 at 10:56 pm

      Very informative stuff.

      You might have a look at this analysis as well:

      Is it true that the Republican exit polls are all well within the margin of error–even given that party’s equally tumultuous primary? If so, then clearly SOMETHING is going on on the Democratic side of things, as the same entity is responsible for running both sets of exit polls. How could their polling be within 1 or 2% of the total vote count EVERY TIME for the Republicans, and yet CONSISTENTLY fall well outside the range of error for more than HALF the Democratic contests? What are the chances of THAT, happening, I would like to know!!

      • Richard Charnin

        May 3, 2016 at 6:18 am

        Are you looking at the published Republican exit polls which have been adjusted to match the recorded vote?
        I have not seen the unadjusted Republican polls.

  14. Josiah White

    May 8, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Dear Richard,

    I think there’s a simpler explanation for The Nation’s and Mother Jones’s failure to give this issue any importance: like the overwhelming majority of Americans, they are mathematically challenged. When you say something like, “The chances of this happening at random are less than 1 in a quintillion,” you might as well be speaking Greek to them. Now I know what you mean. When you say, “There’s less chance than 1 in a quintillion,” you basically mean that it’s a proven fact. But they fail to make the translation to non-mathematical terms.

    The chances that any of these math challenged groups of people will even seriously listen to your statistical proofs is probably something like 1 in 500. Some groups are more math challenged than others. You’d have little problem proving your point if your audience were engineers or NASA scientists. Doctors are much less math challenged than lawyers. And for some reason, the left seems more math challenged than the right.

    This issue is so critically important to our democracy. It’s not that the machine vote CAN be easily adjusted by 5 or 10% in many elections. No, it’s that the vote IS being adjusted, and we know this to a mathematical certainty.

    Bernie raises 2 issues in his campaign: 1) inequality, and 2) campaign contributions are being used to buy elections.

    An issue like vote fraud is just as important, but it’s more the duty of the media to make a stink about it. And it’s especially the duty of the leftist media — like the Nation or Mother Jones — to shout this issue from the rooftops. Because if they don’t, who will?

    By ignoring this issue, or by trashing your “proof to a mathematical certainty” as some kind of a “conspiracy theory,” they remind me of nothing more than the German media in World War 2. When asked about the Holocaust, they said, “We had no way of knowing about these extermination camps.” I guess they were a bit math challenged, too. All they had to do was to count the Jews in their neighborhood, but they weren’t capable of such “higher math.”

    Josiah White

    • Bev

      May 8, 2016 at 9:28 pm

      A beginning:


      Exclusive: Half of Americans think presidential nominating system ‘rigged’ – poll
      NEW YORK | By Chris Kahn

      More than half of American voters believe that the system U.S. political parties use to pick their candidates for the White House is “rigged” and more than two-thirds want to see the process changed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.


      • Just Me

        May 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

        Bev, I was happy to read that so many Americans are convinced the system is rigged. Half of us think it’s rigged. Only a quarter of us think it isn’t (and another quarter are undecided).

        But there wasn’t any mention in either of those articles about the corruption caused by computerized election machines (that make recounts impossible). That’s Richard Charnin’s specialty, and I love the way he has proved that this cheating is so widespread as to seem “normal,” and the way all exit polls are now “adjusted.”

        It’s frankly disgusting to realize that the Mexican election system may now be more honest than ours. I grew up thinking of Mexico as practically synonymous with corruption — every cop wants a bribe. And maybe this is true on the local level. But on the federal level, it’s now Mexico that’s relatively honest, and the good old USA that stinks to high heaven.

        Josiah White

  15. Bev

    May 21, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Exit polling has been cancelled in all upcoming primaries. Richard Charnin was too effective. They had to do something, their fraud was showing. So, now what? This:

    Bernie RECOUNT KENTUCKY. Talk to Richard Charnin and Bev Harris about their evidence. Use that in Kentucky.

    All political candidates who supported Bernie and also ran, but lost in Kentucky, RECOUNT KENTUCKY. You may have won.

    Bev Harris has new research which supports Richard Charnin research. So thankful for both.

    Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers
By Bev Harris May 12, 2016

    1 – Summary –
This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.

    GEMS vote-counting systems are and have been operated under five trade names: Global Election Systems, Diebold Election Systems, Premier Election Systems, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems & Software, in addition to a number of private regional subcontractors. At the time of this writing, this system is used statewide in Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Utah and Vermont, and for counties in Arizona, (upcoming) California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is also used in Canada.


    Where are all the Politicians and Super Delegates who would step up now and save Democracy, Kids, the Climate, the Economy, the Future, and perhaps, even our Species? Even if you knew about all this fraud before, now is what is important, a real chance for change for the betterment of the common good.

    Candidates who support Bernie, look at above evidence by Richard Charnin and Bev Harris.
    Candidates who support Bernie but lost their races in Kentucky, RECOUNT KENTUCKY. You may have won.

    The Berniecrats Network
    Candidates for public office who support Bernie

    This website provides a complete* listing of individuals who endorse Bernie Sanders and are active candidates for a public office. These are people who will do all they can to support and promote Bernie’s progressive plans. As Bernie says .. he can’t do it alone! If we want real change we need to make sure there are enough progressive leaders in office to actually pass the legislation to make those changes happen.

    Being a Berniecrat is not about party affiliation; it’s about the issues. Any candidate who publicly endorses Bernie (Twitter, Facebook, website) and supports his platform, qualifies for this list. You don’t have to agree with Bernie on everything, you just have to believe that he’s the right person for the job, and together we’ll get this country headed back in the right direction! To be added, Tweet me at @Bernie2016Yes.

    Remember that this page only includes people running for office, people who need your support (financial and otherwise). For other endorsements and information, see:

    /r/Berniecrats subreddit – Discussions about Berniecrats!
    Other websites listing Bernie’s endorsements
    Berniecrats Network—Random Issues for Discussion (blog)
    Pending Berniecrats – awaiting confirmation for inclusion

    If you’re looking for an easy way to support a number of Berniecrats in one fell swoop, you might consider using the BlueAmerica “Bernie Congress” donation page through ActBlue ..

    BlueAmerica’s “Bernie Congress”

    Just as we’ve come out in YUUUGE numbers to support Bernie, we also need to support these candidates to make sure the right people are in office!

    Each entry lists the candidate’s name and office along with additional information as available:
    w campaign website
    t Twitter
    f Facebook
    i endorsement info
    m graphic meme (from @EndorseBernie!)

    Incumbents are listed with the year they are up for election. This is a “work in progress” and will may change over time .. please report any errors or omissions by sending a Tweet to @Bernie2016Yes.

    We’re collaborating with @EndorseBernie to add memes to the tweets for candidates. A yuuge thanks to @EndorseBernie for these great memes!

    Cultural leaders have always been important because of their large following and are absolutely wonderful when they are on the side of regular people and the common good, just like Election Integrity people are.
    Artists and Cultural Leaders for Bernie

    We — the undersigned artists, musicians, and cultural leaders of America — are excited to endorse a new vision for our country.

    It’s a vision that pushes for a progressive economic agenda.

    It’s a vision that creates jobs, raises wages, protects the environment, and gets big money out of politics.

    We endorse Bernie Sanders to become the 2016 Democratic Nominee for President of the United States of America.

    Organizing Hub

    • Bev

      May 26, 2016 at 12:10 pm

      Where Did the Bernie Sanders Movement Come From? The Internet.
      Posted on May 25, 2016 by Yves Smith

      By Peter Beattie, ex-lawyer and current PhD candidate in political psychology, forthcoming book “Crooked Timber and the Broken Branch: Why Democracy Is Not Working”

      A year ago, almost no one predicted that Bernie Sanders’ campaign would ever pose a serious challenge to Hillary Clinton’s nomination. Even fewer thought that a balding, white-haired, disheveled democratic socialist septuagenarian with a Brooklyn accent would become the clear favorite of young voters – particularly young female voters. Sanders seemed to come out of left field, and his gradual rise to virtual parity with Clinton in national polls has perplexed pundits – causing many to grasp at straws, while others ended up with their foot in their mouth. Hindsight being 20/20, today it may seem as though Sanders’ formerly-unexpected popularity should have been more widely expected – but how? How did Sanders go from a marginal, small-state senator on the sparsely-populated Left of the US political spectrum – with a widely-agreed-to-be negligible chance of challenging Clinton – to coming uncomfortably close to upsetting her?

      One hypothesis that can be disregarded is that the legacy media did the work of getting his message out. Last year, Sanders was effectively absent from television news, America’s go-to source for political information. This year has been marginally better, but he still received less than half of Clinton’s coverage. (Trevor Noah suggested that to get more TV coverage Sanders should try dressing as Trump’s podium.) Nor did he get much help from newspapers (or Politifact). And the commercial theory of media bias – that the media slavishly focuses attention only on what its audience is interested in – doesn’t seem to fit the data.

      On the internet, however, Sanders has received roughly equal coverage since late 2015, with a slightly more positive tone overall than Clinton. But that’s including news websites; on social media, Bernie is “breaking the internet”. He dominates on reddit, facebook, twitter, and instagram (though Cosmo, while agreeing on objective metrics, points out that Clinton wins on instagram aesthetics, like posting cute animal photos). No wonder Clinton recently introduced to her social media strategy some tried and tested policies from countries around the world, by hiring some help.

      In comments:

      …this article is about the importance of social media to Bernie Sanders’ magnificent rise. So, among many other social media influences, is this perfect meme created by Lee Camp, picked up by Tim Robbins and others:


      How appropriate, from the star of the Divergent movies:

      Shailene Woodley Verified account @shailenewoodley Apr 26
      Shailene Woodley Retweeted Lee Camp [Redacted]
      #ExitPollGate #FeelTheBern buckle yer bootstraps ladies and gents. our work is just beginning.
      Shailene Woodley added,
      Lee Camp [Redacted] @LeeCamp
      #Bernie supporters – let’s get #ExitPollGate to trend on Twitter! The exit polls show election fraud. #BernieOrBust

      Tim Robbins: We Need to Fix Our Broken Election System
      Richard Charnin

      Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland
      Richard Charnin

      Last week, actor and activist Tim Robbins tweeted on the exit poll discrepancies. And the media presstitutes went after him with a vengeance.

      Bernie starts checking Kentucky today. So happy.

      #EXITPOLLGATE: Where Are the Exit Polls from Kentucky Primary, and Should We Expect Any in California?
      by Dawn Papple

      The Democratic Primaries: No more exit polls, Kentucky and Oregon recap
      Richard Charnin


      Now, we need a perfect MEME that can be twitterized for Bev Harris’ find on the illegal code in many voting machines (which Richard’s statistics was catching) that fractionalizes voters able to swing entire states in seconds.

      Your Suggestions:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: