Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

[Coach is Back!]

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

[Skeeter]

You realize that isn't actually the Washington Times, right?

Fake
http://m.washingtontimes.com/

Real
http://www.washingtontimes.com/




That was Richman’s research, all right. The problem, says Richman, who identifies as a political moderate, is that the Trump administration’s interpretation of his report is totally off. “Trump and others have been misreading our research and exaggerating our results to make claims we don’t think our research supports,” Richman says. “I’m not sure why they continue to do it, but there’s not much I can do about that aside from set the record straight.”

Here’s what the math should look like (that is, if Richman’s initial study was accurate—which many researchers doubt). If 6.4 percent of the estimated 20.3 million noncitizens in the US voted, and if just 81.8 percent of them voted for Clinton (the percentage who voted for Obama in his 2008 study), that’s an added margin of a little more than 835,000 votes. In other words: Even with all of those supposedly fraudulent ballots, Clinton still would have won the popular vote by more than 2 million votes.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/

[Straw Man]

You realize that isn't actually the Washington Times, right?

Fake
http://m.washingtontimes.com/

Real
http://www.washingtontimes.com/

.


That was Richman’s research, all right. The problem, says Richman, who identifies as a political moderate, is that the Trump administration’s interpretation of his report is totally off. “Trump and others have been misreading our research and exaggerating our results to make claims we don’t think our research supports,” Richman says. “I’m not sure why they continue to do it, but there’s not much I can do about that aside from set the record straight.”

Here’s what the math should look like (that is, if Richman’s initial study was accurate—which many researchers doubt). If 6.4 percent of the estimated 20.3 million noncitizens in the US voted, and if just 81.8 percent of them voted for Clinton (the percentage who voted for Obama in his 2008 study), that’s an added margin of a little more than 835,000 votes. In other words: Even with all of those supposedly fraudulent ballots, Clinton still would have won the popular vote by more than 2 million votes.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/

[Coach is Back!]

You realize that isn't actually the Washington Times, right?

Fake
http://m.washingtontimes.com/

Real
http://www.washingtontimes.com/




That was Richman’s research, all right. The problem, says Richman, who identifies as a political moderate, is that the Trump administration’s interpretation of his report is totally off. “Trump and others have been misreading our research and exaggerating our results to make claims we don’t think our research supports,” Richman says. “I’m not sure why they continue to do it, but there’s not much I can do about that aside from set the record straight.”

Here’s what the math should look like (that is, if Richman’s initial study was accurate—which many researchers doubt). If 6.4 percent of the estimated 20.3 million noncitizens in the US voted, and if just 81.8 percent of them voted for Clinton (the percentage who voted for Obama in his 2008 study), that’s an added margin of a little more than 835,000 votes. In other words: Even with all of those supposedly fraudulent ballots, Clinton still would have won the popular vote by more than 2 million votes.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/

You will NEVER learn. Can't wait until 2018 when th landslide happen again. The left. Some of the stupidest people on the plant

[Skeeter]

You will NEVER learn. Can't wait until 2018 when th landslide happen again. The left. Some of the stupidest people on the plant

[Coach is Back!]

https://www.similarweb.com/blog/us-media-publications-ranking-december-2016-2



Found it on Drudge...hope this helps.

[James]

REAL:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

[TuHolmes]

The Washington times is kind of like the National Inquirer of politics though.

It's 60K circulation and being founded by some The unification church is not exactly a paper of record so to speak.

The Washington Post would be viable. Or a real newspaper. This thing is trash.

[James]

The Washington Post would be viable.  

The Washington Post wrote back in 2014 that illegals vote:

  "How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

  Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.99146564c81d

[TuHolmes]

The Washington Post admitted back in 2014 that illegals vote:

  "How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

  Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.99146564c81d

From your link.

And why the Washington Post is a real newspaper:

Note: The post occasioned three rebuttals (here, here, and here) as well as a response from the authors. Subsequently, another peer-reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors’ data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.

This is why the Washington Post is in fact, not trash, because it's providing information, and you can look at all sides of a story.

Not editorial hack jobs.

Personally, if illegals ARE voting, then they need to show this in 100% hard factual proof. Not bullshit... not "I think". You have to show the data and how you collected it and all of that shit. Because if there is enough fraud to rig an election, then that needs to change. The validation and integrity of the US as a Constitutional Republic is of the utmost importance and must be preserved at all costs.

[James]

Illegal Aliens Caught Voting

[James]

ICE Agent: I Caught Illegal Immigrant Voters