The study you claim proves “democratic voter fraud” says in the Appendix that the study has yet to be peer reviewed…….
And also states the study has many errors……
And many of the numbers used in the study are “unsettled”…….
And it is because it is unclear what numbers should be collected and used……..
And is based only upon statistical analysis rather than proven election fraud discovered by voter officials….
OR IN PLAIN AND SIMPLE TERMS………………….THW STUDY HAS YET TO BE COMPLETED
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SdmBLFW9gISaqOyyz_fATgaFupI2-n6vWx80XRGUVBo/edit?pref=2&pli=1
Stanford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible”………..and the ONLY reason for this discrepancy must be voter fraud…….
I such can think of other reasons why the so-called discrepancies could occur………..so the Stanford study “rush to judgment” of voter fraud is based upon“Chicken Little” logic
Snopes says:
“Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud……….
“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.
………. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.”
Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com
OR IN PLAIN AND SIMPLE TERMS……….. THE STUDY IS INCOMPLETE
Investment Watch says:
……… we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama.
As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.
Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud « InvestmentWatch
OR IN PLAIN AND SIMPLE WORDS…………. THE “STUDY” EXAGGERATED THE FINDINGS