It Depends on What Your Definition of "Is" Is.

The title is the phrase Bill Clinton used to explain that his perjury was not really perjury. He was only lying to himself, no one else bought it. In the same way when someone says that rigging an election is rare, well it depends on what your definition of "rare" is. Sure, outright voter fraud is "rare." It is 1 to 2% in a some states. In a close election, which this might be, this may be enough to switch one state from Trump's column to Hillary's column. Here in California voter fraud of this range is easy to do. When you register in California, all you need is a driver's license number and 4 numbers you say are the last four digits of your social security number. Then you promise that you are a citizen. Right, no fraud there. As someone who's identity was compromised, I can say that this is actually no security at all. 

The election of Loretta Sanchez over Robert Dornan to congress a few years ago is a good example. The margin was just a few hundred votes. Easily illegal aliens voting gave Sanchez the margin of victory. This is not to say that it would not have happened in the next election, the whole state is trending hispanic, and therefore democratic. 

This video from Project Veritas shows that Hillary Clinton was personally involved in disrupting Trump rallies. While this particular disruption is not egregious, if you think that Clinton was unaware of all the different illegal activity done by her aides, you are very naive. 

How is the election being rigged? 

We are right now in a recession. But yet no one notices, at least on the news. The numbers are rigged. The markets are rigged. 

The opinion polls are rigged. It is vary easy to do. The idea is to discourage Trump voters. Yes, the Clinton campaign was caught doing it. (A friend on Facebook pointed out that this email is from the 2008 primary election. This is an old established technique of propoganda.) 

The media is biased. Do I really have to provide an example? By determining what is news and what isn't the media gatekeepers decide what is important. Which is more important, the coarse things Trump said over a decade ago, or the Clinton corruption exposed by Wikileaks? I would say that both are important, but I do not control any media outlets.

Here is an example:

The media is in the bag for Clinton, but this is truly extraordinary. Between ABC News, NBC News, and CBS, they covered the Trump tape for 23 minutes during one night of coverage. The Clinton WikiLeaks revelations got just 56 seconds of coverage — with NBC News omitting it altogether.

If you rely on network news, you are being played. If nothing else happens but people realize that the media is biased and one needs to get one's news elsewhere, that will be a great improvement. Even that outcome seems doubtful.