Fascinating read. The statistical analysis was quite impressive and points to fraud.
I’m gonna post the study as a separate thread tomorrow. It is a very strong indicator of election rigging that is subtle and virtually undetectable except for an in-depth analysis.
There’s a high degree of plausibility for fraud in favor of Wasserman-Schultz.
Determine the fraud
Then apply what was learned, and apply it to the general election.
DemoRATS aren't inherently intelligent, but they are METHODICAL !!
From figure 8:
“No matter what percentages of the actual votes we distributed to the candidates, we were unable to replicate the reported results. If the division of the votes is close to what we started with in Figure 7 and then a manufactured 3.5% increase in Wasserman Schultz’ results, and a manufactured 3.5% decrease in Canova’s results are input into the graph, then the reported totals can be replicated almost exactly (Figure 9).”
” This would seem to imply some kind of manipulation was necessary to obtain these results. It is possible that the reported results are based on demographic trends, but that those trends are being exaggerated in some way.”