This paper argues that the 2016 primaries were hacked based on the fact that (among other arguements):
There was consistent discrepencies between paper and machine voting results, favoring Clinton and against Trump.
Clinton and Trump support was corralated with precinct size
Demographics are not sufficent to explain the above observations.
I have not verified the accuracy of this analysis, or found other commentary on it.
It's not so much that it's inaccurate as that it's not really anything but an op-ed with some basic data.
The general form of it is thus: "here is some data. I'm saying it means X, which could be explained in Y way or tampering but I won't say it can be explained other ways. Here's a very handwaving explanation of why Y doesn't fit, so I therefore conclude that it must be tampering... I will now devote lots of pages to conspiracy theories about who and why this tampering was done - assuming that I am correct and there is no other explanation."
It's a reddit post writ-large, basically.