Reply #110: All this have been answered for, [View All]

In the thread I pointed to in my other post.

There is a complete and specific "refutes the data", as well as your "namecalling" flame argument in rich supply.

The "refutes" doesn´t exclude fraud, or that the exit polls indicate it, it is a simple matter of applying the consequence of your conclusion on what we do know about the methods.

I´ll present you the formula:

true polling result * (true election turnout and results + X fraudulent turnout and results) = unknown X and truth mix.

"No explanation for that variance has been given", that isn´t truthful.

Conyers have accounted for more votes than the victory margin in Ohio. New Mexico and several other states were blue. Your conclusion is correct IMO, but not how you arrive at it.