Here's Why I'm Not Writing About Vote Fraud In The Election

I keep seeing questions about this in the comments. Let me address the question, rather than simply ignoring it.

After the election, there were claims that one Philly precinct hit 116% voter turnout, and that other precincts hit 90% or above.

Taking the last claim first: That seems to have been based on a misreading. An article I read said that 99% of the votes in some Philly precincts went to Obama-- but I saw it reported in blogs that the precincts had 99% turnout.

Which isn't what the article said. It said that of the votes counted -- with turnout level unspecified -- Obama got 99% or even 100%.

That sounds suspicious but it's not. We're talking about black inner-city neighborhoods. Blacks, generally, voted for Obama at, what, the 95% level? And bear in mind most of the black Romney votes aren't going to be located in Philadelphia's inner city-- they're going to be in suburbs, around military bases, and in very rich suburbs where rappers live (and vote Republican).

It's not the least bit suspicious that poor blacks in the inner city would vote 99% or 100% for Obama, when all blacks -- including middle class, rich, and military blacks (who are more Republican-leaning, relatively speaking) -- vote for Obama at a 95% level. 100% in the inner city in Philadelphia is pretty much what I expect.

What would you expect?

So this part of the claim comes from a mistaken reading of vote count for turnout, or an unwarranted suspicion about it being unlikely that an almost-all black neighborhood in Philly would vote 99% or 100% for Obama.

The other part of the claim-- about the 116% turnout in one precinct -- was due to a mistake, which has been explained.

Two divisions in Southwest Philadelphia's 40th Ward were both assigned to the same polling location, the Paschallville Library on Woodland Avenue. When poll workers were setting up operations for the day, they mistakenly traded the voting machines preprogrammed for each division.

One recorded turnout of 116 percent, with 245 votes from a division with only 211 registered voters, while the other recorded 166 votes among 472 registered voters, or 35 percent.

Combining votes from the two divisions, 411 votes were cast for president among 683 registered voters, a turnout rate of 60 percent - virtually the same as turnout citywide.

Republican City Commissioner Al Schmidt said poll workers at the library realized on Election Day that they had switched machines and notified election officials of the error.

Citywide, only three divisions reported turnouts above 80 percent - one each in West Philadelphia (85.7 percent), Roxborough (80.7 percent), and East Falls (80.4 percent). The Roxborough division was won by Romney.

So, the 116% turnout claim comes from two different precincts swapping their name-tags so that the smaller precinct reported way too high turnout (116%) while the bigger precinct reported way too low turnout (35%). Swap them back around and, presumably, turnout levels are more plausible.

Obviously there is voter fraud and of course Democrats are chiefly responsible for it. And yes, this is a perpetual problem in need of redress and reform. I don't mean to suggest it's not. Voter integrity is crucially important.

But as for the specific charge that the election was "stolen" by large-scale voter fraud -- this meme seems to have originated in the first 24 hours and seems to have been based on mistaken earlier reports and simple misreading of articles. But I guess because no one on the right ever says "I don't believe that, and here's why" it continues to percolate up as a viable claim.

But unless there's more to this than I haven't seen, this just seems to be an I Heard It On The Internet thing. Vaporware.

On the Motivations for Raising Rabble: I'm often curious about the reasons that claims without evidence are put forward. I figure it's a spectrum of rationales:

1. People who really believe it, who heard it, and just believe it.

2. People who don't so much believe it as think it might be true, but proving it to be true would require resources and a fairly serious amount of digging, the sort of digging that only a well-staffed media company or think tank could undertake. So the idea is to propagate the idea on blogs, which in will turn get people chattering about the idea, and this in turn will induce the actual investigation into the claim, which might not bear fruit, but then again it might.

The trouble, from my perspective, of this Type Two Rabble-Rousing is that for me to engage in this chatter-creating process would require me to start pretending I know this is true and it must be investigated by AEI or Fox!!!, and obviously I don't know it's true, and in fact rather think it's not. So it would require me to do an awful lot of lying in hopes of getting a major investigation started... even though I actually don't expect that investigation would wind up bearing fruit.

That's a lot of lying do for a It Just Might Be True! lark. More than I've got in me.

Don't get me wrong-- I like lying. I just don't want to commit to a long-term lie that takes so much damn work.

3. The third reason people might inject these claims into the internet bloodstream is purely cynical -- they don't believe the claims are true, but believe it would be politically useful if other people believed them to be true, so this is just a straight-up huckster move.

While I have sympathy for reasons 1 and 2, I don't have sympathy for this one. People who think this way strongly overestimate their own intelligence. They seem to think that while they themselves can see through some huckster hackery, other people are dumb and therefore can't, and see themselves sort of as puppetmasters.

I don't like this sort of person. Anyone who believes he's smart enough to engineer a Big Lie that works is most likely pretty dumb. Obviously, no one ever admits to being this sort of person, but sometimes I think that people really are trying to sell me on a Big (Dumb) Lie that they know is false, but which they think can Really Make a Difference if we all Just Push It Hard Enough.

This is why I hate all the astroturfing. Like for a specific candidate. It's not just that I disagree with the tactic of faking up a Wave of Irresistible Enthusiasm. I really hate the misplaced I'm So Smart I Can Fool Millions With My Clever Shenanigans mode of thought.

I certainly understand Reason One (I believe it) and Reason Two (I don't necessarily believe it, but we'll never know for sure unless we can get some serious research into this matter, so let's brave-face it and pretend we know for sure such research will wind up in Pulitzer Prizes).

On this last point, though, reporters are fantastically lazy individuals and are never going to just throw hundreds of man-hours into a speculative claim even if a dozen big blogs swear that maybe it's true.

Posted by: Ace at 05:33 PM



Comments

1 first

Posted by: MotherGoos3 at November 29, 2012 05:36 PM (Km6fn)

2 if you're not cheating you're not trying

Posted by: navycopjoe at November 29, 2012 05:37 PM (05mFQ)

3 Some people want to believe the election was stolen because the alternative is horrifying.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 29, 2012 05:37 PM (b+jI9)

4 Ace the Philly thing is an unknown unknown they kicked the GOP out who the fuck knows what happened?

What pisses me off and not at you is the known unknowns like the Somalis voting in Columbus and Cincy in Ohio.

The margin of Fraud is not supposed to be a built in treat of the system, and frankly I think if the Philly elections get to be a treat for us every four years it's time for us to start kicking democrats out of GOP hard districts.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

GOP wards need to refuse to report results while Cleveland is counting as well.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 05:38 PM (LRFds)

5 I don't think Obama got 99% of the vote of the DNC delegates. Seriously, I don't. Mainly because in the privacy of the voting booth.... plus mistakes happen. And I am guessing the IQ level of DNC delegates and inner city Philly voters are both about room temperature.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at November 29, 2012 05:38 PM (C2//T)

6 This post has got to be racist in some way. I'm sure if I stare at it long enough, the racism will appear like one of those magic eye pictures.

Posted by: Wooga at November 29, 2012 05:39 PM (hs37x)

7 No, it IS suspicious because, statistically, people cast erroneous votes, meaning that they will want to vote Obama, or Paul, etc., and accidentally vote for someone else. What occurred in Philly is simply statistically impossible.

Posted by: K at November 29, 2012 05:39 PM (fZ644)

8
yeah, but why aren't you writing about the new Mad Max movie?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:39 PM (jUytm)

9 "It's not the least bit suspicious that poor blacks in the inner city would vote 99% or 100% for Obama, when all
blacks -- including middle class, rich, and military blacks (who are
more Republican-leaning, relatively speaking) -- vote for Obama at a 95%
level. 100% in the inner city in Philadelphia is pretty much what I
expect.

What would you expect?"

===============

Honestly, I would still expect at least one or two iconoclastic votes for Mitt Romney.

Now, that said, absent anything concrete I'm not inclined to run with the "OMG TEH ELECTION WAS TEH STOLENZ!!1 LOL!!" either, but I still think it's beyond asinine for Red State to make this the New Reason for Banning People.

Posted by: Kensington at November 29, 2012 05:39 PM (znT2j)

10 I just realized my hash is changing a lot. Cool.

Posted by: Wooga at November 29, 2012 05:40 PM (hs37x)

11

Until we get Voter ID required...everywhere...then, all voting results are suspect.

Even those UN Inspectors were gobsmacked that we didn't require Voter ID everywhere.

Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 05:40 PM (CM59X)

12

If your definition of stolen is a nationwide lobotamy, well, then, it was stolen.

Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 05:41 PM (LpQbZ)

13 Eleventy -seven..! The SCOAMF probably won by fraud in certain counties.. It just doesn't matter now. Let. IT. BURN. screw it. I'm ready to watch the SHTF and the MSM to blame everyone but the skittle-shitter-in-chief. Say Hello to our furture! Yeee Hawww!

Posted by: Yip at November 29, 2012 05:41 PM (/jHWN)

14 Truman North seems convinced that there was large scale voter fraud, and he has commented intelligently about many other topics, so I tend to listen when he speaks.

How about giving him a post about his concerns and we can see if there is any substance to them.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 05:41 PM (GsoHv)

15 >>>I just realized my hash is changing a lot. Cool.

I don't think my hash has changed in three years.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:41 PM (0q2P7)

16 There were also bussed in, non-English speaking Somalis, huge same day voting by the bus loads, a Colorado canvass board refusing to certify a count due to the numbers, retards and seniles bussed in, illegals in California etc. Same as before. The VA AG is also investigating and I've seen reference to some prosecutions. Not enough for the margin of victory, except in local races like Allen West.

Posted by: eureka! LiFBer at November 29, 2012 05:42 PM (HPRku)

17 ace, that was fine to address two specific incidents. But as a head election judge, I know a little about how easy it would be to create voter fraud.

I was intrigued by all of the areas that have super-high turnout (outlier % of pre-registered voters). I still think it's a good idea to have volunteers outside of trouble areas (see Chicago) and count/video voters going in the door vs how many votes are reported at the end of the day.

Don't give Soros an inch.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 29, 2012 05:42 PM (X/+QT)

18 If it's on the internet, it's got to be true.

/sigh. The voter fraud story does not make me as sad as the rise of the USSA.

Posted by: Shibumi a french model at November 29, 2012 05:42 PM (z63Tr)

19 @14.. that T.N. guy.. He has cred with me too... for reals.

Posted by: Yip at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (/jHWN)

20
I'd like to see Ace explore and write about fear.

Fear on the Right, that is. Why are we so fearful of the media and the Democrats?

We won't win again until we overcome our irrational fears.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (jUytm)

21 Just to be clear,I am not saying voter fraud cost the election because it would take much more than a few isolated cases or areas to tip an election that was not razor thin.Just saying anything close to 99% for one candidate, in any precinct is utter bullshit.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (C2//T)

22 While agree there was likely vote fraud in a lot of districts, most particularly inner city ones I don't think it cost us the election. These districts, and mostly likely the State as well were going to go for Obama anyway.


Neither do I think that the vote fraud was in very large percentages.


I will not regurgitate the myriads of reasons why Romney lost e have had enough of that already.

Posted by: Vic at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (YdQQY)

23 Blue states are evil.

Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (LlEp9)

24 Weeeeelllllllll, I guess that's okay, but I can still call Obama a pee-pee-head, right?

Posted by: tcn at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (VLG62)

25 well, it is real, it's just a question of how much there is. Punditpress blog is a good site to visit.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 05:44 PM (3zQJl)

26

So much fraud came out after the hillary-scoamf primary, alone.

Then, so much fraud came out way after the first presidential election.

I was sold when I watched one of (breitbart/okeefe?) videos where the lib was saying that libs equate voter fraud with speeding tickets. It's nothing to them. And, he admitted they do it freely.

As far as numbers, as it was calculated out, it was only a handful of votes from a handful of districts that lost the election for Mitt. It does not take that much fraud. The libs are good at this. We shouldn't be so naive.

Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 05:45 PM (LpQbZ)

27 We should all retire as soon we can, minimize our incomes so we can qualify for food stamps and Obama-Skittle-phones. Why fight the tide... let it take you out and float baby, float! or am I wrong here?

Posted by: Yip at November 29, 2012 05:45 PM (/jHWN)

28 Ace, FYI, link on nick has a collection of links to reports. When you want to kill some time and get a little more pissed off.

Posted by: eureka! LiFBer at November 29, 2012 05:45 PM (HPRku)

29 Actually, the election process as defined by the US AG's office encouraged voter fraud. Whether or not it was the reason we lost, we'll NEVER know for sure.

I'm inclined more toward the "free shit" element. Also, blatant covetiousness.

Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 05:45 PM (oy/E2)

30 I don't think my hash has changed in three years.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:41 PM (0q2P7)


Mine changes quite often.

But, mostly when we reset our server.

Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 05:46 PM (LpQbZ)

31 "We should all retire as soon we can, minimize our incomes so we can qualify for food stamps and Obama-Skittle-phones." You will then need to leave the republican party.

Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 05:47 PM (LlEp9)

32 99% is not out of the question, unfortunately. In one precint I worked at (where there was no fraud unless it was within the machine), the vote was 82% Dem, 10% Green, 7% GOP, 1% Other. About 1,500 voters.

And this was in a less polarized age about 12 years ago. In white-bread, hippie Minneapolis.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 29, 2012 05:47 PM (X/+QT)

33 It's a tough call, and I appreciate the info on those two cases, but I *really* don't like the fact that the GOP seems to just insist that there is no reason to look into fraud alegations.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 05:47 PM (NYki8)

34 My cut is that if they (Dem/ACORN/NBPP, etc.) have perfected voter fraud to the extent that the election is called at 11:15 PM EST, then it really is all over but the corn-holing.

The more reasonable position seems to be that they haven't perfected their methods of cheating yet (not that they wouldn't cheat or that they are not planning to cheat better in the future). Voter ID still makes sense, clearing voter roles still makes sense, voting weeks in advance still doesn't make sense, so there are many things to work on in the balloting arena.


It is just really hard to run against free stuff using logic and math, and that isn't going to change (unless and until there just isn't any stuff anywhere that is easy to take).

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at November 29, 2012 05:47 PM (Cnqmv)

35 Obamacare will be with this country until we reboot.

Obama will go down as one of the greatest prez's this country has ever had.
His name will be be right up there with FDR.


Well at least that is what your children and grandchildren will learn in school.

So it must me true because your daughter's 4th grade teacher Mrs. Leslie said so......

Posted by: Courtesy Flush at November 29, 2012 05:48 PM (8lB0x)

36 Those 99-100% districts with high turnout rates are obvious fraud centers. There's a forensic fraud theory of lying numbers, that when people cheat, they put in non random numbers of what sounds good. So, all the districts with 1 romney vote or 2 romney votes are further signs.

Read the story of Allen wests district and that monkey circus.

I stopped aggregating because noone seems to care. Not ace's fault, it's one of those things you believe or you don't.

Another problem is voter farming. But what can you do, there are whole sectors and towns and city districts where everyone is on the dime.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 05:48 PM (3zQJl)

37 Of this much, I am sure: I'm 116% inclined to let it burn, or get hit by SMOD, or eaten by bears.

Posted by: jakeman at November 29, 2012 05:49 PM (96M6e)

38 I *really* don't like the fact that the GOP Stupid Party[/b} seems to just insist that there is no reason to look into fraud alegations.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 05:47 PM (NYki

FIFY

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at November 29, 2012 05:49 PM (Cnqmv)

39 We won't win again until we overcome our irrational fears.
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (


You know what worked real well this cycle (but that we didn't do enough of)? Mockery.

Mockery on Twitter, Facebook, blogs, you name it

We need a lot more public mockery of Libs personally, their ideas, and their policies. Their defenses of themselves are hilarious....and empty.

You want to take over the culture? Start by taking over the culture.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 05:49 PM (wDBIL)

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (Cnqmv)

41 A local radio host asked his callers to phone him if they voted in a precinct which reported no Romney votes. One guy called in, said his mom had voted "R" in one of the precincts that didn't report it.

Philadelphia fraud is in a class by itself. You're only just hearing about GOP poll watchers being kicked out the last few cycles, but it has been going on forever. Before electronic touchpad voting, they used to just throw out GOP votes in heavy donk precincts. Some of the GOP poll watchers who were kicked out on November 6 were told, THIS IS A DEMOCRAT CITY. (Just like the pre-teen who was harassed by her teacher she showed up at public school wearing a Romney T-shirt).

I WISH TO GOD ALMIGHTY that all the latte and limo libs in the Philly collar could be forced to live in the precincts that voted 100% for preazy, let them enjoy the true fruits of their allegiance to the donk regime.

Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (jm/9g)

42 I live in the Philly area and 'get into it' with the folks in Philly all the time on blogs. They know damn well that the entire concept of 'a rising tide lifts all ships' means that they'll have to get off their asses and go to work to enjoy that tide. So they'd rather turn out in outrageous numbers to keep that from happening.

I'd still like to look at the software code of the voting machines in random areas, not because I'm paranoid, but because I'd find any line of code that took every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th vote and made it disappear. Because -- and I'm not a genius -- but finding that kinda shit is child's play to me. Give me a popular magazine and I'll find the one typo in one million words.

I really don't have any faith in the electoral process, voting software, or my fellow citizens. It's done, cooked, gone.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (feFL6)

43 And one problem is national GOP can't do anything about. State by state this needs to be addressed. Even if you live in Mass or Md.

There's acorn fraud and union thug fraud. Both are under omerta so we can't do nothing. The same day vote and early vote is a problem, people bragged about doing this on the twitter (now deleted)

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (3zQJl)

44 I thought you said you weren't going to write about vote fraud in the election, Ace? What's with all the words that follow the headline?

Posted by: L, elle at November 29, 2012 05:51 PM (0PiQ4)

45 so again, visit pundit press, I think he had the best roundups. And for 2014, volunteer to be election judge

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 05:52 PM (3zQJl)

46 Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 05:49 PM (wDBIL)


I thought the "choir" sang the mockery theme very well and even artfully in many cases, but the "choir" had already heard the tune!

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at November 29, 2012 05:52 PM (Cnqmv)

47 I know tons of conservatives and republicans who voted on everything on the ballot except for President. In spite of my pleadings, they refused to change their minds. I'm just waiting for them to start complaining when Obama and the dems continue their rape of this country. They won't know what hit them.

Posted by: Mr_Write at November 29, 2012 05:52 PM (CLkAH)

48 More than 1% of people think Elvis is Alive... much more than 1% of people think they have been abducted by Aliens, or seen Angels....

99% or 100% votes only happen in Banana Republics...

And that totaly discounts anyone who may have listened to the Black Pastors who pre election, came out against Obama...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 29, 2012 05:52 PM (lZBBB)

49 So it must me true because your daughter's 4th grade teacher Mrs. Leslie said so......
Posted by: Courtesy Flush at November 29, 2012 05:48 PM (8lB0x)


While teacher edits out the word God in your daughter's poem for veterans...

School Orders 6-year-old to Remove 'God' From Poem

http://nation.foxnews.com/religion/2012/11/29/school-orders-6-year-old-remove-god-poem

Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 05:53 PM (LpQbZ)

50 Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (feFL6)
__
How easy would it be to flip the top of the ticket one way while the rest of the ballot stood pat? Because in every collar county except yours, preaze won but the GOP congressman was returned to office. And preaze won Bucks by a very slim margin, (thank you Gary Johnson voters).

Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 05:53 PM (jm/9g)

51 I lost my faith in the rationality of the general population.

Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 05:54 PM (LlEp9)

52 It's a tough call, and I appreciate the info on those two cases, but I
*really* don't like the fact that the GOP seems to just insist that
there is no reason to look into fraud alegations.


When?

They're not going to cry wolf over fraud allegations based on an easily debunked Internet rumor, no. But that whole Voter ID thing? They're pushing it for a reason.

Remember Acorn? It wasn't the Dems behind the push to defund them.

Problem is, people keep shouting about vote percentages in Philidelphia being proof of fraud, for example. Only later do we find out that the Dem candidate got 90%+ in previous elections too. It weakens, not strengthens, our arguments about voter fraud to make false allegations.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 05:55 PM (SY2Kh)

53 I really don't have any faith in the electoral process, voting software, or my fellow citizens. It's done, cooked, gone.
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (feFL6)


---------------------------------------------------


When we no longer trust even the most basic right of a democratic republic (the vote), then it's over. I agree.

Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 05:55 PM (oy/E2)

54 and the general rule of political fight club is that if changing the rules will help the GOP, then that rule will never be implemented (let alone proposed by brave GOP pols.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 05:55 PM (3zQJl)

55 >>>School Orders 6-year-old to Remove 'God' From Poem

Oh...I pity the teacher that tries that on my kid. I'm getting second hand rage on that one.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:56 PM (0q2P7)

56 My grandson worked with election official in the Greenville/Spartenberg area on installing and setting up the voting machines. I asked him how hard it would be for poll officials to jigger the machines where it would record the opposite party a vote (Vote for Romney show up as a vote for Obama).



He said that the machines had so many safeguards on them that it would be impossible for a local official to do it and almost impossible for someone who knew programing to do it.

Posted by: Vic at November 29, 2012 05:56 PM (YdQQY)

57 "And preaze won Bucks by a very slim margin, (thank you Gary Johnson voters)."

it wasn't that thin + i'd bet a good chunk of Johnson voters aren't necessarily people all that sympathetic toward the GOP

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:56 PM (60GaT)

58 Count how often you fail a login you do everyday. That's a minimum human error rate. Anything better than that screams FR

Posted by: DaveA at November 29, 2012 05:56 PM (Xefrb)

59

You won't know until you get into the trenches.

Posted by: Andrew Breitbart at November 29, 2012 05:57 PM (LpQbZ)

60 oh sorry, misread the post

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:57 PM (60GaT)

61 that screams FRAUD

oops

Posted by: DaveA at November 29, 2012 05:58 PM (Xefrb)

62 >>> so again, visit pundit press, I think he had the best roundups.

Well, that's the article I'm talking about.

If you find 99% of votes cast for Obama suspicious in an all-black poor inner city neighborhood, whereas blacks voted 95% for Obama generally (including in wealthier neighborhoods)... I don't know what to tell you. some areas will have 89 or 90% of blacks voting for Obama (these will be the most pro-Romney areas). Others will be on the other side of the average, with 99% for Obama.

Remember, again, we're not talking about TURNOUT, but % of votes cast for Obama. These are different ideas.


Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 05:59 PM (LCRYB)

63 "Another problem is voter farming."
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 05:48 PM (3zQJl)

I felt physically ill when a severely mentally challenged man was going around telling everyone at church that he voted for Obama. This is the guy who introduces himself every time he sees someone because clearly someone told him that's what you do and he doesn't understand that they meant only the first time (or can't remember meeting the same people from week to week). The reason I felt sick was because someone obviously told him how "good" it would be for him to vote for O, and with Ocare in place he will likely pay for that vote with his life.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 05:59 PM (NYki8)

64 What rappers are voting Republican? I'll buy their music then throw it out

Posted by: L, elle at November 29, 2012 06:00 PM (0PiQ4)

65 Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 05:55 PM (SY2Kh)
From what the Philly residents are saying, the reason the candidates had 90%+ in the past is because thay were cheating then too.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 06:01 PM (NYki8)

66 >>>What rappers are voting Republican? I'll buy their music then throw it out

Why not buy it and donate it, see if you can't help them get more fans?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 06:01 PM (0q2P7)

67 Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:57 PM (60GaT)
__
yes, just went back and checked, 1.2% is a slim margin. Although the .9 percent that Johnson drew would not have put Mitt over the top.

Now in my cursed county, preaze enjoyed a comfortable 22 point victory. Yet the GOP congressman won by 17.

Bipolar.

Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 06:01 PM (jm/9g)

68 Let it burn.

Posted by: blogRot at November 29, 2012 06:01 PM (A6JXc)

69 The whole systems blows goats. It's the same BS you see when they can find any given MadCow in 2 days but can't find illegals. It's built wrong from the get go.

Auditable paper ballots, Voter ID, dyed fingers, get the Mil Vote in, prosecute or invalidate obvious fraud, etc.

Posted by: DaveA at November 29, 2012 06:02 PM (Xefrb)

70 When we no longer trust even the most basic right of a democratic republic (the vote), then it's over. I agree.
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 05:55 PM (oy/E2)

I've been saying the same thing. Assurence that there is (at least mostly) equal protection under the law, and that a citizen's vote will count is what protects a Republic like ours. When the people feel voiceless is when the rioting *really* starts.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (NYki8)

71 Black people do vote based on race. They will vote for a white candidate if no black person is on the ballot but if there is black candidate on the ballot they will more than likely vote for them as long as they have a snowballs chance of winning.

With their life experience I guess one could argue for or against this propensity they seem to have. Of course when it comes to white voters no benefit of the doubt is allowed. If they vote against a black person, racism is assumed.

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (x0g8a)

72 Posted by: Vic at November 29, 2012 05:56 PM (YdQQY)

Is he a skilled programmer or software expert?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (GsoHv)

73 I just don't think those numbers will stand up to the scrutiny of a forensic statistician. Even if the intention of 99% were to vote for Obama, I think it's unlikely.

Cheating didn't lose Romney this election, but I think it's naive to believe it didn't go on in these precincts.

Posted by: Dan Collins at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (Rag47)

74 >>>From what the Philly residents are saying, the reason the candidates had 90%+ in the past is because thay were cheating then too.

I do not understand why you are so skeptical that blacks, who vote 90%+ Democrat, are found to have voted 90%+ Democrat.

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (LCRYB)

75 Ace:

Let me criticize this one statement from your post:

"I think that people really are trying to sell me on a Big (Dumb) Lie that they know is false, but which they think can Really Make a Difference if we all Just Push It Hard Enough."

Whether it's a lie, or a message, or a push for a political candidate, REPETITION matters. Nolte on Breitbart was just commenting on this. Rs fucking suck at talking points and being prepared to counter D/Lefty talking points. It is fucking pathetic. We need a clear message to continuously and REPEATEDLY hammer home.

It does work. As does groundswell support for AHEM certain candidates. I refuse to allow the establishment to pick out or least narrow the field of qualified candidates. Romney was our very best option this time.

Romneycare vs. Obamacare. Fucking awesome.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 29, 2012 06:04 PM (tVTLU)

76 I really don't have any faith in the electoral process, voting software, or my fellow citizens. It's done, cooked, gone.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (feFL6)

Ditto--I know some wizard coders that could make a voting machine whistle Dixie if need be, so I do not (and will never) trust any closed source factory tested software.
I think the best answer I have seen is optical scanners. There is a paper trail for recounts (which seem an impossibility for electronic machines), and the software is pretty straight forward.

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at November 29, 2012 06:04 PM (Cnqmv)

77 In PA, the very first voting screen you see asks if you want to vote straight party line 'D' or 'R'. I think that's a cop-out, but some idiot in PA (probably a 'D') got it established. In Philly it's easy to just hit 1-2 buttons and get your free beer (that's what the 'walking around' money is for). I think that explains 99% BO votes as much as anything. Tap-tap = beer!

Posted by: E Pluribus Unum at November 29, 2012 06:04 PM (u9m7h)

78 Where'd that extra not writing about Voter fraud in the election come from? I guess I should go read what else you haven't written, Ace.

Posted by: L, elle at November 29, 2012 06:05 PM (0PiQ4)

79 62 Ace,

Philly using tradition to show that "we never vote GOP" is sort of self-making prophecy chief.

I agree with your main thrust and I think the "provable fraud" is not much more than normal maybe .5%......

the targeted fraud is what bothers me....look they invited the UN to observe for fuck's sakes b/c I think they felt they had lost....the donks are not gonna invite them back the UN was not exactly glowing with praise for the system we have and I'd be a lot happier if we enforced Iraqi standards here.

We lost because Ogabe's media buddies acted as a force multiplier for his stupid lies and stupid people bought the Emm. Goldstein ads....

we're fucked....this is part of the syptomology not "THE" cause.

Education deterioration and a lack of civics caused this, and it is my fault along with other GOP who quit the education track because of the communists in the NEA.

I'm sorry I let the right down.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:05 PM (LRFds)

80 It's a fucking felony, people. If you ignore felonies (that benefit people), they spread like wildfire. You lose the ability to credibly prosecute them, especially when they result in legislative majorities.

How many military people couldn't vote because their ballots were delayed?

What the fuck happened with the people who bragged about multi-votes? The shouting pushy vote-counters in Florida? Did Franken see any consequence from winning by fraud? Gregoire? Sanchez?

Oh, fucking deaf ears. Imma play video games and ignore the fire.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 29, 2012 06:05 PM (bxiXv)

81 >>>Whether it's a lie, or a message, or a push for a political candidate, REPETITION matters. Nolte on Breitbart was just commenting on this. Rs fucking suck at talking points and being prepared to counter D/Lefty talking points. It is fucking pathetic. We need a clear message to continuously and REPEATEDLY hammer home.

It's not for me.

>>>It does work. As does groundswell support for AHEM certain candidates.

I was talking about fake astroturf support where a small group of around 5,000 people attempts to make themselves seem like 500,000 through repetition and fake names.

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:05 PM (LCRYB)

82 Bassackwards fact of the day: The Associated Press reports on an alarming demographic trend: "The
average age for the four living members of The Rolling Stones is about
two years older than the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court"

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 06:06 PM (Hx5uv)

83 The reality of what TFG and minions is about to, or continuing to do to this nation are bad enough. I've said before that I don't believe voter fraud stole this election, nor did I believe prior to the election that TFG would find a way to suspend the election, nor any other conspiracy theory run wild.

People in my circle of friends and family tend to call me about these type of things on a fairly regular basis, sounding like the little black kids questioning Detective Murtock in Lethal Weapon -- "Is that twue? Is that twue?" They call me because they know I am intensely interested in current events, and many of the internet rumors that reach them are exactly that, rumors and myths.

I debunk the worst of them while saying that there is no need for wildass conspiracy theories, when there's plenty of real life, blow your mind shit happening that IS true.

I do see quite a bit of hysteria expressed here in the comments, though much of it is at least in a questioning mode. Is that twue? Is Ulsterman right? Is Alex Jones right? Is WND right?

Short answer, NO.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 29, 2012 06:06 PM (ccXZP)

84 And one more comment:

I tend to agree with you on voter fraud. However, one guy in NC said he voted 5 times, ADMITTED TO IT, and he was excited to vote on election day.

All this early voting bs and paper/mail in voting is very dangerous. The Milwaukee PD special division found that there were 5k more ballots than voters who voted in 2004. I believe it is a systemic and serious issue.

But there's an easy way to address it. One is national voter ID, i.e., some official state picture ID is required. Period. End of story. and if these fucking states don't implement it, then they don't get their fucking medicaid or road money or whatever.

But the other key here is having the parties police it themselves. So the other half of this is on them, and they do a woeful woeful woeful job of it.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 29, 2012 06:06 PM (tVTLU)

85 So, any estimates of how much actual voter fraud happens?

We all believe it's non-zero and that's it's overwhelmingly Democrats, right?

So what is the actual margin of fraud? 0.01%, 0.1%, 1%, or more?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 29, 2012 06:07 PM (ZPrif)

86 and almost impossible for someone who knew programing to do it

I defer to you on matters of atomic energy, but I think you should defer to me on matters of computer programming. Taking one line of computer code and mangling it to get a different result then what would be expected is something I was very, very good at. Accidentally.

Now I didn't do it out of malice, or to enrich myself, it's just that no matter how good you are at it, you're still dependent upon your fingers to strike keys in the correct sequence. Shit happens. Early NASA missions went into the deep cosmos because a ';' was left off the end of a line.

I put nothing, absolutely nothing past the Democrats. We've gone past smash-mouth politics into an entirely new area. It's now 'put your helmet down and contuse the opposing quarterback' while the press doesn't even notice.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at November 29, 2012 06:07 PM (feFL6)

87 63 Polliwog,

Yup.

The UK would probably have killed me at birth under the new "normal" since my pancreas needed blood transfusions to get jump started.


"Brave new world"

I hate it.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:07 PM (LRFds)

88 Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (LCRYB)
The point was that people with experience are saying that a lot of those past votes involved at least a certain level of fraud as well, making the historical record of those precincts less than stellar evidence for lack of fraud now.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 06:08 PM (NYki8)

89 by the way, I don't think repetition works in a pull medium, as opposed to a push medium.

If I have a captive audience and can just blast the same simplistic messages at them, sure, it might work.

If, on the other hand, my audience chooses whether to come or not, I think a strategy of relentless repetition would be a bad one.

People seem to think, sometimes, that OTHER people are different enough from themselves that OTHER things will work on them.

If I just sat here repeating the exact same slogans every day, you wouldn't come. The idea that OTHER people would come is therefore false. OTHER people are like you, and also would not come for the same ten goddamn slogans every day.

Even TV commercials have hit a wall on this front, now that people can DVR past them.

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:08 PM (LCRYB)

90 From what the Philly residents are saying, the reason the candidates had
90%+ in the past is because thay were cheating then too.

I can't say whether that speculation has merit or not. But we're talking about districts with single digit numbers of Republicans (if that).

If Republican votes were indeed tossed, there likely would've only been a few of them:

http://tinyurl.com/cee68bc


Eighteen Republicans reportedly live in the nearby 15th Division,
according to city registration records. The 15th has the distinction of
pitching two straight Republican shutouts - zero votes for McCain in
2008, zero for Romney on Tuesday. Oh, and 13 other city divisions did
the same thing in 2008 and 2012.

Three of the 15th's registered Republicans were listed as living in
the same apartment, but the tenant there said he had never heard of
them. The addresses of several others could not be found.

On West Albert Street, Duke Dunston says he knows he's a registered Republican, but he's never voted for one.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (SY2Kh)

91 85 Flatbush Joe,

I studied Chicago in High School and came away understanding the margin is between 1 and 3 percent in hard donk areas.

The worst is when they vote the rolls for people who didn't vote.

I am pretty sure my dead grandparents all voted for Obama.

I won't look.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (LRFds)

92 true point, they poll at 90% so why not expect some districts at 100%. Dunno. too sick to care.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (3zQJl)

93 Is he a skilled programmer or software expert?


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (GsoHv)

I gather that the programing for those machines is hardcoded at the factory. All they do is enter the candidates names and verify the machines are working properly. He also said that the internals not only store the votes electronically but they also print a paper record.

Posted by: Vic at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (YdQQY)

94
So...who's fault will it be tomorrow?
I've heard that it's Romney's fault. ...with various reaons offered.
It's incompetent campaign staffs.
It's corrupt consultants.
...It's the RINO's fault -for numerous and various reasons.
...It's the SoCons fault -for various and numerous reasons.
...variations on a theme... ofconservatives/politicians/Republicanslacking ideological purity.
...It's the MSM's fault.
...It's bad 'mechanics.'
...It's bad messaging. (personally, I think voters well understood the [SoCon] message and quite rightly didn't want to have anything to do with it.)
...It's the public school's fault (essentially for not teaching our kids what we believe as conservatives.)
...It's...
Who're we blaming it on tomorrow?
Everyone but ourselves, right?

Right?


Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (WwR1j)

95 Is this something?

wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/

Posted by: Something? at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (7g1yh)

96 If only we had some independent body who could investigate such matters and publish the results on some sort of re-purposed wood byproduct or on the internet, then we have something.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 29, 2012 06:10 PM (b+jI9)

97 >>>The point was that people with experience are saying that a lot of those past votes involved at least a certain level of fraud as well, making the historical record of those precincts less than stellar evidence for lack of fraud now.

either way there is nothing inherently suspicious about 90%+ black votes for Democrats. It's obviously a fact that 90% of black votes are cast for Democrats.

It's like saying you find it suspicious that a blue sky happens to be blue.

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:10 PM (LCRYB)

98 Yes -- I agree with Ace's post. I had to watch some precincts in West Charlotte NC that were clearly going to go 90% plus for Obama. I saw no evidence of fraud -- but I did see very, very high turnout from African Americans.

I would not be surprised if there was some fraud in places -- but I seriously doubt it would have made a material impact in this election.

Posted by: nc at November 29, 2012 06:10 PM (YvFZ3)

99 I do recall evidence being a non-issue to Ace in another debate. Per Supreme Court Minor vs. Happersett:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born
citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law,
with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a
country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their
birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Posted by: kreitzer at November 29, 2012 06:10 PM (G8jZM)

100 "On this last point, though, reporters are fantastically lazy individuals
and are never going to just throw hundreds of man-hours into a
speculative claim even if a dozen big blogs swear that maybe it's true."

Unless it Valerie Plame being outed of her super secret undercover position by Karl Rove.

Posted by: L, elle at November 29, 2012 06:10 PM (0PiQ4)

101 Well, the great news is that Blacks are not racist, and like Whites, have demonstrated this by voting for/electing Obama. And, since Blacks have altruistically supported Obama much more than Whites, they are clearly much more unracist than Whites.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:10 PM (L7dvG)

102 and going back to pundit press, I guess their twitter feed was better source than the website. So much for aggregation.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:12 PM (3zQJl)

103 "... I don't know what to tell you. some areas will have 89 or 90% of
blacks voting for Obama (these will be the most pro-Romney areas).
Others will be on the other side of the average, with 99% for Obama."

Ace--It's not just Philly, there were apparently several precincts in Chicago that also voted 100% Obama. I have no doubt inner city black neighborhoods vote 98-99% Obama. Maybe even some precincts vote 100%. But just as a statistical matter you're talking about tens of thousands of votes. You can't get 99%-100% in several precincts. It's statistically impossible, if for no other reason than voter error. I don't believe it mattered to the outcome, Romney would've lost regardless. But there's apparently some hinky shit going on in these Dem-controlled neighborhoods.

Posted by: Bob at November 29, 2012 06:12 PM (s/Ukz)

104 Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:07 PM (LRFds)

The good news about Obamacare is that a request for a DNR is NEVER refused!

The bad news is that you may get one even if you didn't ask for it!

Posted by: Hrothgar - LIB or SMOD (for the Children) at November 29, 2012 06:12 PM (Cnqmv)

105 83 GnuBreed,

It is not conspiracy mongering to see what they strive for. They cheat every cycle and have going back to the 1820s. It is as American as apple pie, and the media WAS trying to lay the smoke for TFG to invoke Nuclear War powers for a cat 1 hurricane.

It will happen in my lifetime whether SCOAMF gets to be the birthday boy or not.

The media runs the nation and I am desperately trying not to see them as an overt domestic foe.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:12 PM (LRFds)

106 kreitzer,

right, we're back with the Birther thing. Got it.

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:12 PM (LCRYB)

107 104 Hrothgar,

Yup.

I've fought this evil since I was 12.

I lost.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:13 PM (LRFds)

108 91 -- sven10077

Yes, I believe you, but its Chicago. The Democrats don't even needfraud there to win. They probablyjust do it out of habit.

Posted by: nc at November 29, 2012 06:13 PM (YvFZ3)

109 My point has always been, the rolls in north and west and southwest Philly are overinflated. have been for years

if you're a registered R or Indy, you will get purged from the rolls if you don't vote. Dems NEVER get purged.

the warm bodies are not there. they sure as shit filled out census forms tho - or someone did. THAT was to justify the voter #s and congress representation

by the by, non-citizens reporting via census is yet another indirect way American citizens have been disenfranchised. just saying

same-day voting. purple ink. IDs.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (J6kXj)

110 Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (LCRYB)
__
ace, it's true that in the 17 precincts where GOP watchers were evicted (including a 70 year old African-American woman) - there was no chance Mitt would have won there. But it speaks to a larger issue that American citizens feel empowered to ignore the constitution to such an extent that parts of the city are effectively a banana republic.

What if there was some seed of respect for Romney just for the fact that he appeared at Kenny Gamble's charter school in W. Philly and was roundly criticized by the gutless mayor who showed up with a crowd to protest? Suppose a brutha went in to cast his vote on that basis and it was "disappeared". What incentive would he have in future to go against the grain? And encourage those in his personal network to do the same?

Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (jm/9g)

111 He said that the machines had so many safeguards on them that it would
be impossible for a local official to do it and almost impossible for
someone who knew programing to do it.




Are they touch-screen machines? If so, can the local officials calibrate the screens? That's where I see the potential for fraud, if it's possible to calibrate the touchscreens on a local level.

Posted by: NC Ref at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (LY9VZ)

112 Ace,

Your thoughts on point number 3 are ridiculous. The Democrats just got done winning a national election, relying almost solely on the cynical lie! You are living in a fantasy land of your own imagination, in which the majority of people are not gullible idiots. Were you asleep during Obama's campaign? What possible explanation could you have for spouting delusional nonsense so thoroughly discredited by recent events?

Posted by: Grant at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (j1pE2)

113 and then we get back to the demographics equal destiny thing.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (3zQJl)

114 101 MUMR,

Yeah....I am praying Gore is right and you and I can go mine Antarctica for fun and profit.....

I've seen this movie before and I readabout it in China from 250AD-450 AD.....


Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (LRFds)

115 Blue states are evil.
Sorry Ace, I don't agree with you. There is ample evidence that there was cheating here in CT.
Just in the last election alone (2010)there was widespread cheating in the Bridgeport/New Haven area.
1) Polls were held open 2-3 hours late there.
2) The 911 system was used (against the law) urging voters to attend the now open late polls.
3) Poll watchers reported ballots being given out 2-3 at a time to single votors.
In the end, Malloy won the election losing every county in CT except for Hartford and Bridgeport/New Haven. The margin in Hartford was fairly thin... but in Bridgeport they gathered enough votes to overcome ALL the other countys in the state and just missed the number required to trigger and automatic recount.
The state GOP rolled over and did nothing. I called themup and bitched and told them they could go to hell, Foley was a punk who just rolled over and let us all get screwed. Not one more dime of my money.
Since then, Malloy stuff the biggest tax increase in history upour bums, increased the budget 2 BILLION over 2 years and now is shocked were 380 million bucks in the hole this year alone.
They cheat because they know the GOP will just roll over.

Posted by: gdonovan at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (NshEp)

116 they do in fact NEED fraud in Philly and Chicago, to nullify the legal voters in the REST of their respective states.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (J6kXj)

117 "....fake names.
"

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:05 PM (LCRYB)

Wait....you don't like fake names?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo's pseudonym at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (GsoHv)

118 There's no doubt in my mind that fraud occurred, it's what they do.

Some dickbag "election observer" was taking pictures of everyone's ID with his phone as they signed in. I called the county board of elections and they kicked his ass out.

Posted by: ErikW on the damned phone at November 29, 2012 06:15 PM (XkQL7)

119 Ace or joeindc44:

Do we have final turnout %s for the Philly precincts. It is turnout numbers I would be concerned with as Ace points out, not that the ghettos don't like Romney.

Folks, these people don't show up for fucking court with a warrant out. So if turnout is above 80% that raises my eyebrows immediately.

But lower than that is not an obvious case of fraud, imo.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 29, 2012 06:15 PM (tVTLU)

120 Who're we blaming it on tomorrow?
Everyone but ourselves, right?

Right?


Your Mom. Literally hundreds of potential voters were too preoccupied with her $2 beejers to vote.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 06:16 PM (SY2Kh)

121 "3. The third reason people might inject these claims into the internet
bloodstream is purely cynical -- they don't believe the claims are true,
but believe it would be politically useful if other people believed them to be true, so this is just a straight-up huckster move.

While I have sympathy for reasons 1 and 2, I don't have sympathy for this one. People who think this way strongly overestimate their own intelligence.
They seem to think that while they themselves can see through some
huckster hackery, other people are dumb and therefore can't, and see
themselves sort of as puppetmasters.

I don't like this sort of person. Anyone who believes he's smart enough to engineer a Big Lie that works
is most likely pretty dumb. Obviously, no one ever admits to being
this sort of person, but sometimes I think that people really are trying
to sell me on a Big (Dumb) Lie that they know is false, but which they
think can Really Make a Difference if we all Just Push It Hard Enough."
Geesh, Ace, weren't you paying attention to the Obama campaign? That was their whole strategy with Kill Mitt. The LIVs are dumb and can't see the puppetmasters. Obama is not dumb. Pushing alot of Big (Dumb) lies did work.

We're the dumb ones believing our big noble ideas would win the day.







Posted by: L, elle at November 29, 2012 06:16 PM (0PiQ4)

122 we as GOP get blasted for not being able to reach the daylaborersquad and obamaphone lady

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:16 PM (3zQJl)

123 On the Push vs Poll media.

There are sites out there that just push the hardest of hard-core anti-Obama messages. On every post. Every Day. Obama is a Communist. Obama is a Tyrant. Obama is a gay pedophile. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

These sites aren't hard to find. They also get no traffic. They aren't interesting, apparently not even to Republicans.

The most successful hard-core anti-Obama sites usually add something else to the mix.

WND doesn't simply do Obama is a Communist tyrant stories every hour.

Infowars mainly traffics in paranoid delusions. If Romney had one infowars would have shifted in 24 hours from Obama is a Communist Tyrant to Romney is Mormon Plutocrat Tyrant. Same way they used to scream about Skull and Bones and Big Oil Tyrant Bush or NAFTA tyrant Clinton.

So even among the literally crazy -- you have to add something else besides daily screaming anti-obama headlines.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 29, 2012 06:17 PM (ZPrif)

124 Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:10 PM (LCRYB)

Because I'm curious but don't know where to look, did any precincts go 99-100% for Romney? Even close? I'd be more inclined to accept the legitimacy of the O precincts doing that if there's at least a little evidence that it goes both ways.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 06:17 PM (NYki8)

125 >>>-It's not just Philly, there were apparently several precincts in Chicago that also voted 100% Obama. I have no doubt inner city black neighborhoods vote 98-99% Obama. Maybe even some precincts vote 100%. But just as a statistical matter you're talking about tens of thousands of votes. You can't get 99%-100% in several precincts. It's statistically impossible, if for no other reason than voter error.

No it's not. When we say 100% we mean rounded to the nearest integer. In one Philly precinct it was 99.5%, rounded up to 100%.

For god's sakes, if you accept that blacks generally vote 92% for Democrats, where is all this suspicion coming from that with a black candidate for president -- given that some blacks actually think he's JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY -- you won't have some precincts hitting 99.5%?

We are about welfare neighborhoods, dude. Perfect storms for Obama. Racial pride gives Obama an advantage. 92% Democratic registration gives Obama an advantage. Economics (makers vs. takers) gives Obama an advantage.

If 95% of blacks vote for Obama, I'll tell you what's statistically impossible-- that no areas would hit 100%.

It's the bell curve. You will have a hump in the middle around 95%, and then tails down to 100% and at around 89%.

It is statistically impossible for such things to not take a bell curve sort of distribution. some areas are going to be in the tails.

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:17 PM (LCRYB)

126
From the previousthread:
210 soothsayer,

Charlize Theron has two really big reasons I respect her craft.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 05:06 PM (LRFds) 290
yeah but she never shows themPosted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:06 PM (jUytm)2 Days in the Valley, gentlemen.

Posted by: USS Diversity at November 29, 2012 06:18 PM (85EaA)

127 Posted by: Vic at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (YdQQY)

If there is a port into the controller (and there has to be to get the data), then my bet is that someone can screw with the results, or the actual votes as they occur.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo's pseudonym at November 29, 2012 06:18 PM (GsoHv)

128 as far as numbers go, like many other lazy people, I assumed that someone would look into it. I went to various state secretary of states for the numbers, like when I was bitching about michigan. Wiki has statewide numbers but sec. of state (like re: katherine harris) should have them on thier websites.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:18 PM (3zQJl)

129 Thank you for addressing this, ace. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. And although I disagree with your conclusions, I cannot fault you anymore for embargoing the other side of the issue: namely, This May Have Happened.

That being said, This Did Happen. It was stolen. Millions of Romney votes simply failed to show up. Tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of people were bussed from one urban center to another to vote many, many times. Many have admitted as such. They had upwards of a month to do it. They did it.

I sat and saw the numbers from Cuyuhoga (sp) County come in, perfectly balancing the vote of the outlying red counties and then only barely surpassing them. In real time, ace.

I saw the networks call Pennsylvania ten minutes after the polls closed, before any of the outlying red counties in coal country had fully reported.

I saw it, you saw it, we all saw it.

I have a file on my computer with about 45 links to articles from websites and news organizations you have actually heard of, alleging or showing actual vote fraud.

This happened. It was stolen. I know how they did much of it, but not all of it. It happened. Demonstrably, and for a fact.

But there is nobody in the press to turn to, and don't even get me started on establishment republicans, to get relief on this critical issue.

I am so certain that it happened, and I am so certain that it cannot be stopped, that I am working plans to make vote fraud result-neutral. That is true.

I do not mean this to be an indictment against you, ace. I believe you and I am really pleased you've addressed it at last.

I disagree and I do it respectfully and with admiration for you and your reasoning.

Posted by: Truman North at November 29, 2012 06:18 PM (/Xglv)

130 Wait.

Who are these rich rappers who can vote?

The surviving Beastie Boys and...uh...Common?

He's seriously the only one I can think of who hasn't been at least *arrested* for a felony. And I'm not sure about him. I know he's claimed to be a hard-ass felon we should all be scared of, but he's known to "front," as the old folks say. He's a bitchy college girl at heart. So, not a Republican.

Ice Cube? I don't think he's ever done any actual non-publicity-related crimes. But he's also a "voting is bullshit" guy.

So, who?

Posted by: oblig. at November 29, 2012 06:18 PM (cePv8)

131 >>>Your thoughts on point number 3 are ridiculous. The Democrats just got done winning a national election, relying almost solely on the cynical lie! You are living in a fantasy land of your own imagination, in which the majority of people are not gullible idiots. Were you asleep during Obama's campaign? What possible explanation could you have for spouting delusional nonsense so thoroughly discredited by recent events?

well yes but such lies are constructed by paid professional Lie Creation Experts, not freelance amateurs.

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:18 PM (LCRYB)

132 Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (SY2Kh)
___
Mr. Dunston knows better than to admit for publication that he ever voted Republican. A friend of mine in S. Philly told me the donk poll worker told him he was not allowed to vote Republican when she saw his registration.

Word gets out, and shit goes down.

Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 06:19 PM (jm/9g)

133 Now, for the other stuff:

This is a question of epistemology. People are, for whatever reasons, obsessed with the necessity of concretely proving some claims. The key phrases being "concrete proof" and "some claims."

If one lives by "concrete proof," then one should die by "concrete proof." Which is to say, every claim should necessitate concrete proof, not just some "arbitrary" subset of claims. More "concretely," the claim "There was no electoral fraud" (or "There were negligible levels of electoral fraud") requires just as much "concrete proof" as the claim "There were nonnegligible/significant levels of electoral fraud."



That being said, I don't really care about electoral fraud, because I believe that the problems are much more fundamental than that. On the other hand, I do have a certain interest in the truth. Whatever that might be.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:19 PM (L7dvG)

134
89by the way, I don't think repetition works in a pull medium, as opposed to a push medium.
...
If I just sat here repeating the exact same slogans every day, you wouldn't come. The idea that OTHER people would come is therefore false. OTHER people are like you, and also would not come for the same ten goddamn slogans every day.

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:08 PM (LCRYB)

---------

Yeah, but repetition *does* work, Ace.

Look at how much repetition was involved in the 'SCOAMF' meme....in getting it to the status of being a 'meme'.

Look at how the Dems use repetition in getting their talking points out.
It's like they're a bunch of fucking parrots whenever they've got a new slogan...they repeat it over and over.

So as obnoxious as it may be...repetition works.

Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 06:19 PM (CM59X)

135 I was poll watching at one of the precincts in Allegheny County that reported 0 Romney votes. It was Pittsburgh 12-13 Lincoln Lemington Belmar. I can vouch that no Republicans voted.

Posted by: Ben at November 29, 2012 06:20 PM (xTHBC)

136 Democrats have 1-2% fraud built in. Romney lost by 4%. So yes there was fraud. No it didn't cost Romney the election.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:20 PM (HDgX3)

137 Ace:

Then yes, as to astroturfing, that is total bs. agreed. Like the number of zero's twitter followers...

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 29, 2012 06:20 PM (tVTLU)

138 >>>So as obnoxious as it may be...repetition works.

only when people can't change the channel.

Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:20 PM (LCRYB)

139 Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:17 PM (LCRYB)

Incorrect.

Assuming that there is some error rate in voting (I wanted to vote Obama but I voted for Romney instead, and obviously the other way around), then the overall rate for Obama in Black precincts will skew away from 100%, because more errors will be made against Obama than for him.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo's pseudonym at November 29, 2012 06:21 PM (GsoHv)

140 "137 Ace:

Then yes, as to astroturfing, that is total bs. agreed. Like the number of zero's twitter followers...

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 29, 2012 06:20 PM (tVTLU) "

Lolsam.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:21 PM (L7dvG)

141 There was one vendor that made their code available for examination some years ago. I looked at it. It was scary bad. Much worse than the lashup that runs this blog.

Posted by: @PurpAv at November 29, 2012 06:22 PM (upmAr)

142 All I can say is that if cheating matters that much in the elections then there is no fix. It's just a symptom of DOOM. The Dems know they are the party of voter fraud and they will never allow anything to get in the way of that advantage.

The Right can get laws enacted like Voter ID, but unless they break out the purple ink it won't matter. Rules don't matter to cheaters.The Dems can cheat of the front or the back end.

I mean, what about the GOP makes anyone think they can reverse the voter fraud issue? They won't even fight to stop the crushing debt. They're useless.

That's why I'm not interested.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 29, 2012 06:22 PM (J4gw3)

143 "It's not the votes that count. It's who counts the votes."

Posted by: Stuff some dude said... at November 29, 2012 06:22 PM (feFL6)

144 Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:16 PM (3zQJl)
___
Romney deserves much respect for showing up at the W. Philly school. How ironic -Richie Rich who can't connect with the Average Guy -is the only GOP presidential candidate to have ever ventured into the belly of the beast.

Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 06:22 PM (jm/9g)

145 The issue does seem to be turnout vs %.

I know where I voted on election day I saw ... well ... a lot more black people in line than I normally see around town. I think black people were highly motivated by racist loyalty to vote for the first black president.

The question seems to be whether the turnout #s are believable.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 29, 2012 06:23 PM (ZPrif)

146 if you're not cheating you're not trying

Can we do like the Bears players and use viagra?

Posted by: WTF Do I Know at November 29, 2012 06:23 PM (HtUdo)

147 I gather that the programing for those machines is hardcoded at the factory. All they do is enter the candidates names and verify the machines are working properly. He also said that the internals not only store the votes electronically but they also print a paper record.
Posted by: Vic at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (YdQQY)


---------------------------------------------------


Perhaps what you say is true in your state or precinct. But what about other states and/or precincts?

Also picture ID and an inked finger. Most problems solved.

Early voting is another very large invitation to fraud. Same as the loose requirement for absentee ballots.

Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 06:24 PM (oy/E2)

148 I don't think there was enough fraud from the Dems to put them over the top in Ohio and PA--


but--

Weren't there something like 16 precincts in Philly where no one voted for Romney--not even by accident?

Not even because they were drunk?

Not even on a lark?

Not one old Asian shop keeper that essentially wanted to vote Romney to say--the hell with you to a Philly Alderman?


Hell I went and looked it up--

It was 59 "voting divisions in Philly-- 100% Obama.


In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes
November 13, 2012|By Miriam Hill, Andrew Seidman, and John Duchneskie, Inquirer Staff Writers




It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.

"We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic," said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. "It's kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia."


http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-

13/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-

romney-voter-id-law

_________________________

What the hell are the odds of that?

Not one drunk, or crank voted even by accident for Romney.

Posted by: tasker at November 29, 2012 06:24 PM (r2PLg)

149 Can we do like the Bears players and use viagra?

Never heard of the stuff.

Posted by: Andy Reid 0 for 7 since 'bye' week at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (feFL6)

150 124



Because I'm curious but don't know where to look, did any precincts
go 99-100% for Romney? Even close? I'd be more inclined to accept the
legitimacy of the O precincts doing that if there's at least a little
evidence that it goes both ways.

___________________________________________________________

If Whites voted for Romney 95-5 like blacks voted for Obama 95-5 you'd have a point. But whites voted for Obama 60-40. No sub group as far as I know voted for Romney 95-5, so there will be no precinct made up 100% of that subgroup which will vote Romney 99.5%.
I'm guessing the closest you'll get is 75% Romney precincts in rural Utah or Idaho.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (HDgX3)

151 Flatbush Joe:

Exactly. My focus is on turnout %. I absolutely refuse to believe any large inner city precinct will hit 80% turnout, let alone 90%.

That is where I want to focus the efforts on. I am not sure how Truman North saw these votes come in real time in OH, but in Philly, for example, that is where I would dig first.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (tVTLU)

152 You REALLY want to clean up the system?

Constitutional Amendment that each Congresional district votes for its OWN Electoral Vote... and whoever wins the State gets the Electoral votes for the Senator.

Makes each District a Mini Election... and means candidates will HAVE to run Nationaly... not just in swing States.

Then National ID Card tied to Voter Registration, Citizenship status, and Passport....

Then election Day becomes a National Holiday, with Polls open 24 Hours, and NO abscentee voting except for Military or Federal Gov Workers out of country.... Even those LIVING out of the country must come here to vote if they wish to use their voting Privelege. Your National ID (above) must be shown to vote, where it is scan'd into a National Database which shows you voted..... and if you vote TWICE? Felony charges.

That is how your ensure a CLEAN election, with modern technology.... even if they stuff the ballot boxes in a few districts, it will only matter for those FEW electoral votes... and not swing a whole state...

Posted by: Romeo13 at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (lZBBB)

153 You know the last guy to get 100% of the vote in his hood might have been--

Saddam.


Posted by: tasker at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (r2PLg)

154 If you find 99% of votes cast for Obama suspicious

If you think people can do something they only do once a year at a 99% or better rate you're kidding yourself.

Posted by: DaveA at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (Xefrb)

155 as i said yesterday, seems blue states have sewn up obamaphonelady, daylaborsquad, and whitepeopletooimportanttowork along with the unions. So, what can u do

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:26 PM (3zQJl)

156 Remember the reports of thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan not even receiving their absentee ballots?

That was just a fuck up, right?

Posted by: ErikW on the damned phone at November 29, 2012 06:26 PM (XkQL7)

157 I don't like this sort of person. Anyone who believes he's smart enough to engineer a Big Lie that works is most likely pretty dumb - Ace
_______________
I guess you just called the Democrat elite "dumb."

Posted by: Baldy at November 29, 2012 06:26 PM (opS9C)

158 There's a new Mad Max movie ?

Posted by: Noah Bawdy at November 29, 2012 06:26 PM (dCjum)

159 I wouldn't put it past a guy like barry soteoro or his friends.

Posted by: yerro at November 29, 2012 06:26 PM (CO/ju)

160 154 If you find 99% of votes cast for Obama suspicious

If you think people can do something they only do once a year at a 99% or better rate you're kidding yourself.
Posted by: DaveA at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (Xefrb)

_________________


Ace has it wrong.

It was--

100% in 59 Philly voting districts.

(link up thread.)

Posted by: tasker at November 29, 2012 06:26 PM (r2PLg)

161 We should be especially concerned with fraud in Philly because it turns out that PA was actually closer than CO. So PA was actually the tipping point state in the election. We now know that Romney's most likely path to 270 was FL+OH +VA+PA, and that may be true for the GOP nominee in 2016 as well.

Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 29, 2012 06:27 PM (TRZqq)

162 "I gather that the programing for those machines is hardcoded at the factory."

This is almost certainly untrue.

"All they do is enter the candidates names and verify the machines are working properly."

What sort of verification process do they employ? How reliable is it?

"He also said that the internals not only store the votes electronically but they also print a paper record.
Posted by: Vic at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (YdQQY)"

Then the paper records should be counted, and the two results compared.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:27 PM (L7dvG)

163 Mr. Dunston knows better than to admit for publication that he ever
voted Republican. A friend of mine in S. Philly told me the donk poll
worker told him he was not allowed to vote Republican when she saw his
registration.


The point is, these districts contain almost no Republicans. It shouldn't be surprising that Republicans get almost no votes in them.

I'm not trying to discount voter fraud- it happens and needs to be stopped. We're not going to make a convincing case for addressing it if we keep trotting out false allegations based on conjecture though.

Again- shouting about Obama getting 99% of the vote in a district populated by 99.9% black Democrats as being evidence of fraud hurts our argument. Doing so only makes it less likely that legitimate allegations of fraud will be taken seriously and investigated.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 06:28 PM (SY2Kh)

164 right, it's not just that blacks vote 90+ for donks. It's turnout. It's multiple votes. and same day registration. No id.

and every new replacement american, fresh off the boat, is marched to voter registration booth

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:28 PM (3zQJl)

165 When my husband was President, we didn't have these problems. We were invaded by the Brits, they burned Washington City to the ground, including turning the "White House" into a pile of "Black Ashen" rubble. We pulled ourselves up, kicked the British King in the ass, and rebuilt the nation. The same spirit needs to be revisited now. I told James, watching the smoldering hull that was left of the people's house, it takes a storm to clean up a mess. Until the people of this country has a renewal of spirit, it will continue in decline. Very sad.

Posted by: Dolley Payne Todd Madison at November 29, 2012 06:28 PM (KI7Dk)

166 Baldy, I think Ace was talking about us, internet commenter/blogger types, not the George Soroses of the world.

A Big Lie with a $1B media campaign can succeed.

A Big Lie by joe commenter is just kinda delusional.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 29, 2012 06:28 PM (ZPrif)

167

Because I'm curious but don't know where to look, did any precincts go 99-100% for Romney? Even close? I'd be more inclined to accept the legitimacy of the O precincts doing that if there's at least a little evidence that it goes both ways.

Posted by: Polliwog





Unlikely, simply because their was no demographic that Romney won at a 96% level like Obama did with Blacks..

Heck, the exit polls said even the Mormons were only voting for Mitt at a 78% rate.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 29, 2012 06:28 PM (kdS6q)

168 "148 I don't think there was enough fraud from the Dems to put them over the top in Ohio and PA--


but--

Weren't there something like 16 precincts in Philly where no one voted for Romney--not even by accident?

Not even because they were drunk?

Not even on a lark?

Not one old Asian shop keeper that essentially wanted to vote Romney to say--the hell with you to a Philly Alderman?


Hell I went and looked it up--

It was 59 "voting divisions in Philly-- 100% Obama.


In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes
November 13, 2012|By Miriam Hill, Andrew Seidman, and John Duchneskie, Inquirer Staff Writers




It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.

"We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic," said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. "It's kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia."

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-

13/news/35069785_1_romney-supporters-mitt-

romney-voter-id-law

_________________________

What the hell are the odds of that?

Not one drunk, or crank voted even by accident for Romney.

Posted by: tasker at November 29, 2012 06:24 PM (r2PLg) "

Like everything Ds do, seems legit to me...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:29 PM (L7dvG)

169 I wanted to vote Obama but I voted for Romney instead...

The way that gimmick works is you voted "wrong" on a bullshit downticket race and need a new ballot...

...which they dutifully hand you...

...but don't confiscate your spoiled ballot and destroy it...

...and you feed both ballots into the precinct's counting machine.

Voila, a vote is manufactured out of thin air. The only one that will catch this is someone who manually tally's up the sign-in sheet and compares it against the mechanical counter's count of total ballots.

Posted by: @PurpAv at November 29, 2012 06:29 PM (upmAr)

170 For god's sakes, if you accept that blacks generally vote 92% for Democrats, where is all this suspicion coming from that with a black candidate for president -- given that some blacks actually think he's JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY -- you won't have some precincts hitting 99.5%?


No. To hit 99.5%, 199 out of 200 would have both wanted to vote Obama and managed to master the physics behind understanding how to and actually pulling the proper lever.

Like someone said earlier, how often do you type in a password incorrectly? Is it more or less than 1 out of 200 times? There is zero chance that 199 out of 200 voters both wanted to vote Obama and did not make a mistake in the booth.

And like I said, I believe there is almost zero chance that voter fraud cost Romney the election.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at November 29, 2012 06:30 PM (C2//T)

171 If anything that should perk our fraud ears up are the polls. The RCP average showed a 0.9% Obama win. He won by 4%.

As the left told us, polls are perfect. So if the polls said 0.9% and Obama won by 4%, doesn't that say something about either polls or fraud?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:30 PM (HDgX3)

172 No it's not. When we say 100% we mean rounded to the nearest integer. In one Philly precinct it was 99.5%, rounded up to 100%.

________________


The Philly.com article says--

"zero votes for Romney".


So--no rounding up.

Posted by: tasker at November 29, 2012 06:31 PM (r2PLg)

173
138 >>>So as obnoxious as it may be...repetition works.


only when people can't change the channel.


Posted by: ace at November 29, 2012 06:20 PM (LCRYB)

------

Or...if it's on every channel.

Which is how the Dems do it.

But if something is outrageous enough, it get's out there.
That seems to be the ticket.

Something that is controversial, and catchy, gets repeated even by the Dem-controlled media.

For example...."Don't touch my Junk"....this got repeated a lot.

Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 06:31 PM (CM59X)

174 Railing against 99% of blacks voting Obama is good for our argument that black voters are racist though and that whites should just ignore accusations of racism against them when blacks vote.

It is a sign of sickness in our society that blacks vote as a racial bloc.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 29, 2012 06:31 PM (ZPrif)

175 Are they touch-screen machines? If so, can the local
officials calibrate the screens? That's where I see the potential for
fraud, if it's possible to calibrate the touchscreens on a local level.


Posted by: NC Ref at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (LY9VZ)

Yes our machines are touchscreen. I don't know what they have. All he said was that there were interlocks and safeguards that prevented tampering. He said a LOT of them.

Posted by: Vic at November 29, 2012 06:31 PM (YdQQY)

176 If the demographics weren't enough to win for the liberal candidate this time without massive voter fraud, they will be within a few elections, unless the right takes on these policy-driven forced demographic changes.

The No. 1 issue Obama had in his favor this year was not his policies. It was that a majority of voters agreed with the statement: Obama "cares for people like me." "People like me" is a racial issue in 21st Century America.

Chronic mass immigration plus forced integration and assimilation (and affirmative action, set-asides, quotas and so on) are making that dominant "people like me" issue cut more in favor of liberals all the time, by changing the electorate to one that identifies more with the non-White (and miseducated anti-White) coalition known as the Democratic Party.

The right has to take on this machine or it will continue to be steamrolled; America will go the way of California.

Does anyone think that Democrats can't win in California without massive vote fraud?

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 29, 2012 06:32 PM (6AmAc)

177 If Whites voted for Romney 95-5 like blacks voted for Obama 95-5 you'd have a point.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (HDgX3)

That was my suspicion actually, which leads to another point. Why is that? Have we really become just as segregated as before? Or is it that nothing's really changed and now the segreagation's more obvious as *all* now vote for the same party? I'm honestly asking since at under 40 and growing up in CO I really don't know. Most of the black people I grew up around were *actual* African-Americans who were studying at CSU and that's not the same thing at all.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 06:33 PM (NYki8)

178 I think I read where they just have them pull --

The Dem Lever.

So--they might still have the old school voting machines in some of those Philly districts.

Posted by: tasker at November 29, 2012 06:34 PM (r2PLg)

179 "176 If the demographics weren't enough to win for the liberal candidate this time without massive voter fraud, they will be within a few elections, unless the right takes on these policy-driven forced demographic changes.

The No. 1 issue Obama had in his favor this year was not his policies. It was that a majority of voters agreed with the statement: Obama "cares for people like me." "People like me" is a racial issue in 21st Century America.

Chronic mass immigration plus forced integration and assimilation (and affirmative action, set-asides, quotas and so on) are making that dominant "people like me" issue cut more in favor of liberals all the time, by changing the electorate to one that identifies more with the non-White (and miseducated anti-White) coalition known as the Democratic Party.

The right has to take on this machine or it will continue to be steamrolled; America will go the way of California.

Does anyone think that Democrats can't win in California without massive vote fraud?

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 29, 2012 06:32 PM (6AmAc) "

You honestly think Leftists believe in assimilation (forced or otherwise)? Are you high?

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:34 PM (L7dvG)

180 I don't disbelieve there was incidential fraud in certian places. But even if there was, I just have a hard time believing it made a difference in this election.

I totally making these numbers up, but lets say you had a precinct with 2,000 votes. Lets further assume that without fraud the precinct would have gone 90% Obama (1800 votes). Lets assume with fraud it went 98% Obama (1,960 votes). Yes, thats 160 votes. Multiply that by a few precincts it would have a made difference in Florida in 2000.

But in Florida in 2012, Obama won by 60,000 votes; in Virginia, he won by 150,000 votes and Ohio it was more than 100,000 votes. There would have had to have been systematic widespride fraud to get those kind of vote spreads. There is no evidence that there was that level of fraud.

Posted by: nc at November 29, 2012 06:34 PM (YvFZ3)

181
But the other key here is having the parties police it themselves


The Democrats police fraud for tips. The Republicans = RACIST!

Posted by: DaveA at November 29, 2012 06:35 PM (Xefrb)

182 By the way, just got back upthread to read the comments, and I appreciate the endorsements from you folks. It's gratifying.

But this ain't my show, and ace rightfully deserves the final word here. I disagree, but we can disagree and remain agreeable.

Posted by: Truman North at November 29, 2012 06:35 PM (/Xglv)

183 170 Andrews' Dad,

Yeah that's where I am...I mean the 1-3% in donk towns is by rote and baked in the cake...I figure he grabbed maybe ~.5% extra in the "must stay blues" but folks our turnout sucked and we could have overcame it.

People are retards.

A majority does not want federal healthcare, Obama won and reid held.

A majority think that spending is the problem not undertaxation, Obama won Reid held.

Fuck 'em you sat at home you voted for what's coming.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:35 PM (LRFds)

184 177

That was my suspicion actually, which leads to another point. Why is
that? Have we really become just as segregated as before? Or is it that
nothing's really changed and now the segreagation's more obvious as
*all* now vote for the same party? I'm honestly asking since at under 40
and growing up in CO I really don't know. Most of the black people I
grew up around were *actual* African-Americans who were studying at CSU
and that's not the same thing at all.
_____________________________________________________________

Blacks have been voting at least 90% for Democrats since the 70s. Going from 90-10 to 95-5 isn't really that big of a jump.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:36 PM (HDgX3)

185 "180 I don't disbelieve there was incidential fraud in certian places. But even if there was, I just have a hard time believing it made a difference in this election.

I totally making these numbers up, but lets say you had a precinct with 2,000 votes. Lets further assume that without fraud the precinct would have gone 90% Obama (1800 votes). Lets assume with fraud it went 98% Obama (1,960 votes). Yes, thats 160 votes. Multiply that by a few precincts it would have a made difference in Florida in 2000.

But in Florida in 2012, Obama won by 60,000 votes; in Virginia, he won by 150,000 votes and Ohio it was more than 100,000 votes. There would have had to have been systematic widespride fraud to get those kind of vote spreads. There is no evidence that there was that level of fraud.

Posted by: nc at November 29, 2012 06:34 PM (YvFZ3) "

Whether it made a difference or not is another question. But if it took place, and it did, it is something we could maybe perhaps be bothered to sort of mention from time to time...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:37 PM (L7dvG)

186 Is this something?

wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/

Posted by: Something at November 29, 2012 06:37 PM (7g1yh)

187 well, as I've been saying, we just have to wait for Ike to break TFG's serve. In about 20 years. People lived through Great Depression 1.0, so get ready for 2.0.

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:37 PM (3zQJl)

188 Mississippi, with the highest black % population in the country (38%), voted for Romney by 11 points. It was 13 points in 2008. Why did not one ad run in my state? Why was it a gimme for Romney, if black voter fraud in Philly was so overwhelmingly important to TFG's win there?

In MS, 90% of whites voted for Romney. It was the same % in 2008 for McCain.

Are whites cheating in MS? How can these numbers be? Because white voters in MS do vote, regularly, and are overwhelmingly Republican and conservative. That's why no ads were run here.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 29, 2012 06:38 PM (ccXZP)

189 45 so again, visit pundit press, I think he had the best roundups. And for 2014, volunteer to be election judge
Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 05:52 PM (3zQJl)

And get kicked out? Yeah, that worked really well in '12...

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at November 29, 2012 06:38 PM (KL49F)

190 The problem with "the Election was stolen" fever swamp is instead of conservatives figuring out the real reasons we lost, they just throw our hands up, say they cheated, and keep doing the same thing over and over. Many even drop out of voting, because what's the point if it's rigged?

I don't doubt there's real Democrat fraud, but it really is at the extreme margins, much less than 1%, and mainly in places that weren't really in contention like Michigan, PA, Illinois, etc.

I still think the GOP should insist on Voter ID, it's almost always a political winner anyway and makes Democrats look like cheaters and I think it deflates a lot of potential fraud.

I still don't understand though WHERE the Bush 2004 voters went. I know in my area, Romney enthusiasm was far and away beyond what I saw for Bush's reelection campaign. Had those voters showed up, it would have been an epic knockout of Obama.


Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 06:38 PM (sxk7T)

191 180 NC,

I'd like to believe you but I watched Cuyahoga sit out long enough to generate as many votes as needed.

Hell add in the systemic TRUE voter exclusion of the US forces afield.....

no add that and the "spigot cities" as braged on by Axelrod and there you have it..."could it have been done?" yeah maybe but unprovable and I freely acknowledge that.

This was probably the last election with a majority of native born Americans anyway......

move on dot org...

40 million guys named Juan and all the Jihadi Jims Ogabe can excuse in to our lovely ship.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:39 PM (LRFds)

192 time to call it a day.

Posted by: Vic at November 29, 2012 06:39 PM (YdQQY)

193 fraud goes beyond blacks voting at near perfect unity in districts without poll watchers, need more aggregation of the information we stopped looking for

Posted by: joeindc44 at November 29, 2012 06:39 PM (3zQJl)

194 I might sound more intelligent if I could spell.

Posted by: nc at November 29, 2012 06:39 PM (YvFZ3)

195
Exactly. My focus is on turnout %. I absolutely refuse to believe any large inner city precinct will hit 80% turnout, let alone 90%.

Posted by: Prescient11




Why? A precinct averages about 1100 voters, in a wide rage of less than 500 to more than 2700 voters. That's a reasonable number to flog for votes.

Also, with walk-up registration, you should have a 1:1 corrispondance on those new voters. With provisional ballots, you could even potentially get more than the pre-election registration 100%.




Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 29, 2012 06:39 PM (kdS6q)

196 190 McAdams,

Mostly on the mark IMHO.

The Fraud was largely baked in and if there was "new" or "over and above the call of duty" fraud it was likely sub 1%

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:40 PM (LRFds)

197 It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

________________

That's vote fraud.

Didn't win PA for them but still.

If it had happened anywhere else in--

the world

--vote fraud would be a legitimate charge.

Not even Putin or Iran or some other dictators are that audacious.

But the Philly Dems--no problem.

Posted by: tasker at November 29, 2012 06:40 PM (r2PLg)

198 The right has to take on this machine or it will continue to be steamrolled; America will go the way of California.


-------------------------------------------------


You better protect your loins. American HAS gone the way of California.

Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 06:40 PM (oy/E2)

199 "190 The problem with "the Election was stolen" fever swamp is instead of conservatives figuring out the real reasons we lost, they just throw our hands up, say they cheated, and keep doing the same thing over and over. Many even drop out of voting, because what's the point if it's rigged?

I don't doubt there's real Democrat fraud, but it really is at the extreme margins, much less than 1%, and mainly in places that weren't really in contention like Michigan, PA, Illinois, etc.

I still think the GOP should insist on Voter ID, it's almost always a political winner anyway and makes Democrats look like cheaters and I think it deflates a lot of potential fraud.

I still don't understand though WHERE the Bush 2004 voters went. I know in my area, Romney enthusiasm was far and away beyond what I saw for Bush's reelection campaign. Had those voters showed up, it would have been an epic knockout of Obama.


Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 06:38 PM (sxk7T) "

Attempting to relate to reality through strawmen isn't really all that productive...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:40 PM (L7dvG)

200
147 ...Also picture ID and an inked finger. Most problems solved.

Early voting is another very large invitation to fraud. Same as the loose requirement for absentee ballots.

Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 06:24 PM (oy/E2)

------

Yeah, when voting is going on for nearly a month...all kinds of fraud can happen.

And then we have astate like Oregon, whichis all-votes-by-mail.
What could go wrong there. /

We need a standardized voting method for Presidential Elections.

I don't care how a state conducts their local elections.
But the Presidential Election affects us all.

Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 06:41 PM (CM59X)

201 "197 It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

________________

That's vote fraud.

Didn't win PA for them but still.

If it had happened anywhere else in--

the world

--vote fraud would be a legitimate charge.

Not even Putin or Iran or some other dictators are that audacious.

But the Philly Dems--no problem.

Posted by: tasker at November 29, 2012 06:40 PM (r2PLg) "

Exceptionalism.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:43 PM (L7dvG)

202 I agree with those who say that there was certainly fraud, after all people *bragged* about it, but it probably didn't actually lose the election. At the same time, it's still a felony and there's no question that those who were very open about their fraud should be indicted. And yes, I do realize that *should* doesn't get us very far with a Holder DoJ but I'd still like to see the GOP pushing for action on it.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 06:43 PM (NYki8)

203 "200
147 ...Also picture ID and an inked finger. Most problems solved.

Early voting is another very large invitation to fraud. Same as the loose requirement for absentee ballots.

Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 06:24 PM (oy/E2)

------

Yeah, when voting is going on for nearly a month...all kinds of fraud can happen.

And then we have astate like Oregon, whichis all-votes-by-mail.
What could go wrong there. /

We need a standardized voting method for Presidential Elections.

I don't care how a state conducts their local elections.
But the Presidential Election affects us all.

Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 06:41 PM (CM59X) "

Opportunities...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:44 PM (L7dvG)

204 Yes, comrades, the voting system is pure like Lake Baikal water. There is absolutely no evidence at all of any democrat de-enfranchising anyone through widespread voter fraud.

All the evidences of kicking out Republican monitors, the unlikelihood of 100% of anyone doing anything in a group (ever tried to get a group of 3 people to order pizza?) and the films of Democrat operatives being caught red-handed multiple times leading up to the election - why, that's just LIES and GARBAGE.

Ace, sometimes you try too hard to make a point and miss the fact that your nice divisions of examples is pure horseshit.

The facts are that there was evidence. Project Veritas ring a bell?

And no, I do not believe that 100% of any group all voted for one candidate. That is impossible without violence and suppression PLUS voter fraud.

You're wrong, and you're ignoring evidence to focus on just two bits you are able to refute which allows you to dismiss any and all other evidences that could clutter your nice, false set of 3 and only 3 options.

Fact is, you closed your eyes in order to make things all nice and neat and to sneer at people you disagree with.

Really, you should take these posts and sit on them for an hour or two.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at November 29, 2012 06:44 PM (IOSGZ)

205 Thanks Vic. I used to build touch-screen machines (gaming not voting) and the stories about people touching one part of the screen to cast a vote and having it rack up for the other guy is entirely believable. Also funny (not ha-ha) how all the reports were from Romney voters seeing their votes tallied for Obama and none going the other way. Hmmmm......

Posted by: NC Ref at November 29, 2012 06:44 PM (r4GeY)

206 191
@
Obama won 51% of the popular vote and Romney won 47.5% of the popular vote. This was by no means a blow-out, but its also not really a superclose election. If this were Kennedy/Nixon 1960 or Bush/Gore 2000 -- yes, I could believe fraud made a difference. But in 51/47.5 race -- no, I just don't buy it.
@
That having been said, I am all in favor of voter ID laws and taking steps to stop fraud.

Posted by: nc at November 29, 2012 06:44 PM (YvFZ3)

207 if black voter fraud in Philly was so overwhelmingly important to TFG's win there?___
I don't know if anyone is making the case that voter fraud in the Philly precincts tipped it to preaze...if my posts have given that impression it was not my intention.
I am venting due to having lived the ordeal of being the focus of national attention on presidential election days due to the outright blatant corruption of the Philly donk machine. Some of the scenarios I mentioned do point to GOP voter suppression tactics (by intimidation) and that is why I do not support the Banana Republic of Philadelphia with my consumer dollars.

TFG won PA by 5.4 points, well over the Philly fraud threshold.

Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 06:45 PM (jm/9g)

208 "202 I agree with those who say that there was certainly fraud, after all people *bragged* about it, but it probably didn't actually lose the election. At the same time, it's still a felony and there's no question that those who were very open about their fraud should be indicted. And yes, I do realize that *should* doesn't get us very far with a Holder DoJ but I'd still like to see the GOP pushing for action on it.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 29, 2012 06:43 PM (NYki "

Punching down is not necessarily the most productive use of time...

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:46 PM (L7dvG)

209 It's not the turnout, it's the population. According to the US Census statistics, 110-115% of the population for some the precincts in Phillyhad cast votes. That's the problem.

Posted by: Huusker at November 29, 2012 06:47 PM (PaKLC)

210 208 MUMR,

Hell I'm in the position of quitting punching at all.

Up down left right none of it matters.

We're not a serious nation and if I had a magical get out of jail free card and could wish people to the cornfield like in the Twilight Zone episode I'd ask people to explain the bill of rights and the founding to me and the moral case for the income tax.

I'm betting I'd leave less than 40 million people not in the cornfield.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:48 PM (LRFds)

211 Check this out, though:

http://www.fantasticalandrewfox.com/2012/11/28/watching-the-sausage-get-made/

There's lots of fraud going on, much more than gets reported.

Posted by: Trimegistus at November 29, 2012 06:50 PM (XqWb3)

212 I'm not saying the vote factories and voter farming aren't real. But that's just the culture of the people. When you have enough of the right sort of people, you get that kind of political practice.

Where you have a Black population you're going to have a Black political culture. Where you have a Mexican / Mestizo population, you're going to have that political culture. Everybody including the Irish has historically had their own way of doing things.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 29, 2012 06:52 PM (6AmAc)

213 This is why I won't vote in PA any more. The 99.5% voting has spread to my county (outside Philadelphia). Three (or 4?) wards near me came through with the same results. But of course, I'm hysterical to think it might be statistically impossible or to question the fact that even if 100% of the voters wanted to vote for Obama, it's reasonable to think that at least a few of them wouldn't make a mistake.

And the PA GOP of course says nothing because, above all, we don't want to upset anyone. We must appear rational and good-natured, it's worked so well for us, you see. Because of course, even though the Dems have gone far beyond the pale in every area unimaginable, they would NEVER stoop to destroy the integrity of our elections, right? Just remember, it's us crazy folk who put up a fuss and embarrass the reasonable Republicans who know so much better and have worked with the Dems to govern us so well.

So I won't vote. And I certainly won't embarrass anyone.

Posted by: jeannebodine at November 29, 2012 06:52 PM (48+2q)

214 Laughing really hard at 'reporters are fantastically lazy individuals" Reminds me of my college roomate journo major.
In order to graduate he had to finish a paper and turn it by a certain date. He was a miserable procrastinator and missed the deadline.A week later he dropped the paper off at his professor's "NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR"S HOUSE" then called his professor a few days later and asked if he had received the paper that he had dropped off in his mailbox. Wanted to make sure he had the right house, and described the neighbors house.
I shit you not.

Posted by: simpleton at November 29, 2012 06:52 PM (za3QZ)

215 "Punching down is not necessarily the most productive use of time..."
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at November 29, 2012 06:46 PM (L7dvG)


yes, "punching down" oh yes, Let's label anything difficult as "punching down" or that "not a hill to die on" or "purity brigade" or some other worn out bullshit phrase.

Fact is anyone who commits voter fraud commits petit enslavement since they violate the rights of citizens and strip everyone participating in the election of their right.

Prosecuting vote fraud is not "punching down" if that phrase still means "focusing on petty items". I consider voter fraud the equivalent of a capital crime.

It is not a petty crime and it is worthy of attention. Am I incorrect in assuming you are saying that it is not worthy of attention? That it is somehow acceptable?

I cannot understand that as a position of a rational person- if it indeed is the case. Care to explain how you think it is unfitting to pay attention to? Or at least explain how I am incorrect in reading your post?(because that's very probable, since I am very stupid)

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at November 29, 2012 06:55 PM (IOSGZ)

216 166
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 29, 2012 06:28 PM (ZPrif)
_______
Thank you. that makes sense. I forgot the context.

Posted by: Baldy at November 29, 2012 06:57 PM (opS9C)

217 Regarding computerized voting machines.

How complicated does it have to be? I don't know dick about computers but it seems that the technology has advanced far enough that a team of engineers shouldn't have to show up every time a Diebold machine casts a vote for Obama when someone hits the touchscreen for Romney.

Why, I might start to think that the whole thing's rigged.

Posted by: ErikW on the damned phone at November 29, 2012 06:57 PM (XkQL7)

218 Is this something? At thanksgiving I found out that I had two additional voter's registration cards. In the past I've lived at my grandmother's and mother's houses (both blue states) and I still apparently get registration cards sent there without asking for them. So I could have voted three times if they bothered to tell me in time

Posted by: ketos at November 29, 2012 07:03 PM (VK4bK)

219
There were over 70,000 "irregularities" in the voting on Nov. 6. That's not an accident.

Even in the inner city, it is so statistically improbable that there would be not even one vote for Romney in these precincts that it defies imagination.

Face it, Ace, there was vote fraud - massive vote fraud - taking place on election day, whether you wish to accept it or not. Barack Obama is NOT the legitimate President of the United States.

I think we're seeing Reason #3 in place - "I don't want to talk about the possibility of vote fraud because the punditocracy has already declared that 'unreasonable' and off-limits, so if I want to keep my cocktail party cred, then I better not mention it."

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 29, 2012 07:09 PM (U+vgB)

220 >>>That is where I want to focus the efforts on. I am not sure how Truman North saw these votes come in real time in OH, but in Philly, for example, that is where I would dig first.


Sorry, to clarify: I saw individual precincts report in real time shortly after polls closed.

Posted by: Truman North at November 29, 2012 07:11 PM (I2LwF)

221
@ 148 - "What the hell are the odds of that?"

Hey, the smart mil-blog guy says it's unreasonable and "punching down" to ask questions like that, so there ya go.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at November 29, 2012 07:13 PM (U+vgB)

222 You guys are way off on vote fraud. Maybe statewide it's 1-3%. But at a precinct? It can be as high as 50%, meaning half the votes are fraudulent.

Posted by: Truman North at November 29, 2012 07:17 PM (I2LwF)

223 Using one example to dismiss something untoward shuts down most people, but I was curious by the claim of 100% for Obama so I looked at the Cuyahoga County results - includes Cleveland.

5 precincts had 100% of the registered voters vote for Obama; the number of votes were 2, 118, 49, 17 and 13 voters in those precincts. In an additional 15 precincts no votes were cast for Romney - he got zip.

But in Clevelands 12th M.02, 590 people voted and only 322 were registered. On the off chance that like the dismissed situation was repeated here, I looked at Clevelands 12th M.01 and combining it with M.02, 1151 voted and only 1024 were registered.

183% turnout. Romney got 449 to Obama's 682.

Fraud happens. Did it swing the vote? probably not - but don't dismiss it.

Posted by: Tracy Coyle at November 29, 2012 07:22 PM (DGr/g)

224 Ace is right. What really pisses me off is that the years I spent at our central committee, trying to be an activist for real instead of the Internet-type, were wasted by conspiracy idiots repeatedly taking the floor, and sucking up ALL the oxygen in the room, to assert that *something* (nefarious) was going on in the county elections office, and *someone* oughta look into it, by God!

SAME fucking people would not volunteer for a committee to investigate..fuck all you conspiracy mongers and the jackasses you rode in on.

Posted by: Jeanne the Obscure at November 29, 2012 07:33 PM (7SEMT)

225 the biggest fraud was Republican voters believing Romney could win.

Posted by: Alans at November 29, 2012 07:34 PM (V2OI+)

226 Statistically speaking, at least one of those inner city blacks would be dumb enough to accidentally vote GOP.

And if those electronic fraud-o-matic machines that flip votes flipped them both ways, some GOP votes would have stuck.

Even the other Hussain (Saddam) didn't claim 100% of the vote.

Posted by: Smarty at November 29, 2012 07:37 PM (a6pWJ)

227 I'm sorry but I think I'm going to have to stop thinking of and dealing with blacks like individuals. They are more collectivist than the Borg when it comes to some, if not most things and it may be time to start responding in kind.

Posted by: SamIam at November 29, 2012 08:22 PM (S09w5)

228 O's at 49% approval today. Leading up to the election he was rarely above 50%. And yet we're to believe he won? LOL.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at November 29, 2012 08:22 PM (KL49F)

229 The party that brought us the faked vote at their convention regarding "God" (remember the NAYS had it but they pretended the YAYs did) didn't cheat here? Uh-huh. Suuuure.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at November 29, 2012 08:24 PM (KL49F)

230 229 The party that brought us the faked vote at their convention regarding "God" (remember the NAYS had it but they pretended the YAYs did) didn't cheat here? Uh-huh. Suuuure.

After reading out a scripted result regardless of the floor vote, and after countenancing various other anti-democratic moves at the Republican convention, John Boehner has no standing to make points like that.

Posted by: The Lightworker at November 29, 2012 08:34 PM (6AmAc)

231 Ace you are wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Vote fraud was the KEY COMPONENT of Obama's victory. First, he had about 10 million less votes than 2008. Inner-city Black people are dutiful and will vote for Obama? Really? Given that illegitimacy is over 90% in the Urban Core, and 48% of Detroit adults are illiterate, I would argue that this population is highly reflective of low rates of dutifulness and civic participation.

Second, Obama's victories were of ALL the swing states. Almost all of which were polled for Romney by a few percentage points days before the election. What's the probability Obama would take ALL of them?

Third, Republican voters were down low, down from 2008 levels, when all indications in polling, and on the ground rallies, showed massive increases in participation.

You want me to believe that somehow magically Republicans turned in massive waves for the 2010 CONGRESSIONAL elections but turned off because they could not vote against Obama (whom they HATE HATE HATE) by pulling the lever for the Mormon White guy.

Fourth, Republicans HELD THE HOUSE. Losses were minimal, about ten seats IIRC. Obama wins -- but Republicans hold the House? Please.

You are wrong because you miss the point.

No, even if the vote fraud were proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, Obama would still be President. He's Black. There are different rules for him. That's both law and custom and the harvest of the Civil Rights movement and deification of Martin Luther King. There is no magic bullet to remove Obama -- only the long-shot of digging into the massive scandals of Fast and Furious and Benghazi gun-running to Al Qaeda and leaving the SEALS and Ambassador, Sean Smith to die. Even that is a long, long-shot.

The point is REPUBLICANS CANNOT WIN. EVER. BECAUSE DEMS CHEAT.

This is steroids in Baseball. Dems are roiding like crazy. They're not even hiding it. And Republicans will lose, lose, and LOSE! Every time. Unless they either force non-cheating by massive vote fraud catching (which is not realistic, since vote fraud by Blacks and other non-Whites is allowed and encouraged by the legal system and social attitudes period).

Or engage in it themselves. If no one is going to stop Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens from roiding, EVER, then the solution is to out-roid the roiders.

Republicans ought to engage in systematic counter-fraud. The elections are as clean as Bill Clinton's man-parts. That won't ever change. The path to victory is tossing Dem ballots and creating your own.

Otherwise expect President Michelle Obama, followed by President Valerie Jarret, followed by President Kanye West, followed by President Jay-Z. Republicans could beat guys who followed the rules: Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry. They can't with guys who don't: Clinton and Obama.

Posted by: whiskeysplace at November 29, 2012 08:34 PM (4878o)

232 This site has a lot of links to stories about fraud:
obamavoterfraud.blogspot.com
(It looks like it hasn't been updated since the 8th, but it has -- he's just putting the new stuff at the bottom of that now-very-long post.)
And since I don't comment often enough to know how this works, the site is
obamavoterfraud with the dot-com ending on it.

All you people who say that fraud is 1% - 3%, or those who say there was fraud but it didn't cost us the election: where are you getting that information?

Posted by: pestilential at November 29, 2012 08:34 PM (3SW88)

233 Dems are the party that held an abortion based convention, that took God AND Israel out of their platform...publically, at their convention. Who believe that Sandra Fluke is a worthy representative. Who supplied arms to Mexican drug cartels which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people including a border agent and an immigration agent, and have fought to cover it up. Who allowed the murder of 4 Americans in Benghazi on 9/11/2012 and immediately lied to the American public about the origin of the attack and have been lying since in and are now attempting to sweep this treason under the rug.

And this is the short list. Do you really believe this administration would not do whatever it takes to win including voter fraud? Because that is what they have done. We are naive not to address it. It's overwhelming and it's terrible to contemplate we are at this place, but it's one of the myriad of voting issues we face.

Posted by: small town girl at November 29, 2012 08:39 PM (jpPSm)

234 It is like the hurricane was a gift from God.
I heard this in two places on the news.
Or cold blooded murder.

Posted by: Al Derecho at November 29, 2012 08:53 PM (frxVF)

235 Voter fraud is, frankly, far down my list of reasons to consider the US electoral system as a sham. Higher up on my list are that USG is actually run by an unelected bureaucracy; and that in what is left of our democracy, non-taxpayer non-veterans are allowed to vote (so they vote themselves free shit).

Let. It. Burn.

Posted by: boulder hobo at November 29, 2012 09:11 PM (QTHTd)

236 nice sharing

Posted by: 2N2907A at November 29, 2012 09:22 PM (IHTrh)

237 Do the math, the election was stolen, again. Studythe democratmachine it is not just gangster patronage and intimidation it iscreatinginner city ghettos to harvest votes by keeping the people dependant and ignorant of the greater world. It is not just fraud it is evil.They don't vote, the machine just writes their names in plus the names of the deceased andsportsplayers. In Florida, they even use cartooncharacters.
Democracy is a very repressive form of government the minority always gets screwed. It used to be Black folks now it is productive citizens. You knuckleheads need to read history. Voter fraud has truly ended the republic.

I don't know about you but I look forward to my new poverty and serving my democrat masters.

Posted by: den1313 at November 29, 2012 11:19 PM (yMk61)

238 Total fail, Ace. You never even mentioned machine hacking.

Here in Iowa we filled out our ballots and then fed them into the machine. Got no hard-copy printout to certify what was actually recorded. The cold hard truth is we have no idea what happened to them after that.

Those anomalies at the polling places are nothing compared to what hackers could do. It isn't who votes. It's who counts the votes.

Posted by: creeper at November 30, 2012 08:11 AM (DCWLh)

239 Ace and others,
Sorry about the long post. Short version is that Romney did not lose the election because of voter fraud. What fraud existed probably helped Obama more but was not decisive enough to sway the election such as Florida 2000.

The whole problem with election fraud is that it is devilishly hard to prove, many election administrators and poll workers make many mistakes, and we spend a lot less care with voter lists than we do with driver's licenses. Remember, never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

Having spent roughly 4 years on a peer reviewed article on voter fraud, my co-author and I failed to find a single case of a dead voter rising to life to vote in the 2008 presidential election in a southern state with documented convictions in voter fraud.

We used multiple sources and when we had evidence of particular possibility of fraud, we then looked at the signed affidavit that our state requires each voter and poll worker to fill out. We had zero, zip, nada, evidence of a documented dead person voting in 2008 out of millions of voters (corroborated through the SS death index and the State's Dept. of Vital Statistics, as well as obituary searches).

Now, I personally believe that some common types of voter fraud exists--people who vote in two states, felons who are ineligible vote, non-citizens vote, vote buying, and gathering votes of incompetent voters (senile or mentally ill etc.). In all of these cases, we found convictions for these offenses in criminal courts throughout the states during our research phase. However, vote buying which occurs where walking around money is distributed to GOTV efforts is very hard to prove. Likewise, vote harvesting by those who go to group homes to register and collect absentee ballots are likewise difficult to prove because you must prove incompetence to prevent them from voting. Guardianship orders are not in typical databases to be searched and may not be in the jurisdiction where the vote harvesting occurs.

The easiest type of fraud to detect are people who vote in two states if a key index such as social security number is required for voter registration in both states. This can be done through database searches if the states gather enough personal information to match using database techniques. Occasionally, outright ballot box stuffing occurs but is usually easy to document as it uses absentee ballots that require documentation.

Last, but not least, I am contemplating a project to detect the incidence of non-citizens and felons voting using jury strike lists by using that sample to extrapolate to the population of the state. To serve on juries, you must be a citizen and usually not a felon who is on parole or probation (Maine allows inmates to vote) and states generally permit people in jail to vote who are not felons. Thus, anyone stating that they are ineligible to serve, under penalty of contempt, due to non-citizenship or being convicted of a felony should not be voting. Currently negotiating with the courts to gain county jury and non-eligible lists. As courts are not under FOIA type laws in this state, the negotiations are ticklish as this information is quasi-public.

Of the hard form of voter fraud, voter impersonation, ballot box stuffing, and intentionally voting in two states, is pretty rare. Of the softer forms of voter fraud, coaching incompetent voters, gathering votes from felons and illegal aliens, voters who get some money from their GOTV guy, these are more common.

Posted by: wg at November 30, 2012 08:52 AM (mXRhV)

240 I have toi disagree with you Ace, the election WAS stolen in the Eastern swing states. CPT Charles I watched the returns on Election Night here in Ohio. When Romney got within 1,000 votes the NE counties who had been hitherto sitting on their results promptly reported in with pro-Obama results in the 90% range, including 99% in multiple precincts. One or two, maybe, but we were talking at least a DOZEN of them, in Cuyahoga County alone! Reports that lopsided should automatically be checked for fraud, just because it's too good to be true.

Now maybe we shouldn't cry over spilt milk, but given the price of milk these days, some hue and cry is needed. Maybe a million discounted Obama votes might not balance 3 milllion Republican no-shows, but the actual popular vote was closer than expected, and could have swayed a count or two. Romney should have resorted to lawfare and refused concession until the votes were properly counted. What did he have to lose? Instead, he gave in and went home. I suppose those people who are blaming the consultant-types for the result can now extend their ire for telling Romney to "do the right thing" instead of standing up for his rights as a candidate, MSM tantrums be damned. (Who knows, a recount delay might have allowed those late-delivered military ballots to be added to the mix as well....)

By giving Obakand his cohorts a free pass on corruption, we allow them to run it again next time. Just because he couldn't really win the election on his own ideas doesn't mean he should have been allowed to buy the win. As much as we give Romney's campaign grief, he still managed to close the gap on Obaka and nearly win...except for the 99% turnout in Blue urban areas where overt favoritism was present and fraud went unchallenged.




Posted by: exdem13 at November 30, 2012 01:15 PM (1GunI)

241 the returns on Election Night here in Ohio. When Romney got within 1,000 votes the NE counties who had been hitherto sitting on their results promptly reported in with pro-Obama results in the 90% range, including 99% in multiple precincts. On

Posted by: conexão T igual at December 02, 2012 02:35 AM (NSW03)

242 ed, and could have swayed a count or two. Romney should have resorted to lawfare and refused concession until the votes were properly counted. What did he have to lose? Instead, he

Posted by: Conexões circulares at December 02, 2012 02:36 AM (NSW03)

243 election WAS stolen in the Eastern swing states. CPT Charles I

Posted by: Cotovelo de 180”ć grau at December 02, 2012 02:37 AM (NSW03)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0682 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0355 seconds, 252 records returned.
Page size 182 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat