How about a crazy counter theory?
Not every state system was “ hacked’ but selected states use voting machines procured from sources connected to Soros.
The results were supposed to be programmed to give Hillary the win
The democrats were complacent. Hillary was complacent. Cooked polls were fed to the public for months to support her winning. Obama was complacent enough to ridicule any concerns of vote fraud
Then wham. The machines in some selected states did not deliver what was expected. What happened?
Did “someone “ undo the rigging - allowing a more fair result? Rewrote or removed or otherwise allowed an override of embedded code that would have flipped votes to Clintin? Pretty sophisticated operation if that is what occurred. The “ un stealing” of the U.S. election
Is that why the democrats via Stein are itching to get a “ forensic analysis ‘ of the voting machines in only selected statrs? To figure out how their plans were thwarted? Is this why they are so sure only a state actor could have pulled it off?
Yes, it’s why she did not bother to campaign until the last week of the election. We need to vote with paper ballots and a blue finger after we sanitize the voting rolls.
I think that they definitely can get by with some tampering of the software in selected precincts.
Read this: DSW accused of rigging the primary election against her democrat opponent. It’s amazing she even ran for office after getting the boot from the DNC.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3485797/posts
“Here’s an independent statistical analysis of my race against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, concluding that the official primary results are “mathematically implausible” and suggesting possible manipulation in the vote tabulation. Should we manually counts ballots in our elections? These researchers say yes.”
http://www.hollerbackfilm.com/blog/wass-can
From the study:
In the race between Wasserman Schultz and Canova, that does not happen (Figure 2). As more and more votes are added in, instead of the pattern approaching the average level of support for each candidate (a flat line) Wasserman Schultz’ percentage climbs continuously in a mathematically precise pattern, and Canova’s percentage decreases steadily. We will discuss later in the post exactly how precise the pattern is. This is not the expected statistical pattern. This graph is by Anselmo Sampietro, a mathematician who holds a Master of Statistics degree from the University of Bologna, Italy.
Continued from #129
This report is highly suggestive of software manipulation (FL) that gave the candidate an overall 7% advantage.
In order to more closely approximate the reported totals, it is necessary to give Wasserman Schultz 100% of the Black vote, and lower her support in other demographics. This projection is closer, but still does not match the reported totals (Figure 8).
Figure 8 - The reported totals exhibit a steeper increase from the smallest to the largest precincts than any combination of the actual votes.
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.
I think you might be on to something.