Thread: Vote fraud... what vote fraud?
#31 Vote was astronomical for Obama in some Philadelphia wards11-10-2012, 11:03 PM
November 09, 2012|By Miriam Hill, Jonathan Lai, and Andrew Seidman, Inquirer Staff Writers
Some Philadelphia neighborhoods outdid themselves in Tuesday's presidential election.
In a city where President Obama received more than 85 percent of the votes, in some places he received almost every one. In 13 Philadelphia wards, Obama received 99 percent of the vote or more.
Those wards, many with large African American populations, also swung heavily for Obama over John McCain in 2008. But the difficult economy seemed destined to dampen that enthusiasm four years later.
Not to worry. Ward leaders and voters said they were just as motivated this time.
"In this election, you had to point out to the people what was at stake. And in many cases, they felt that the Romney doctrine was not going to favor the working man," said Edgar "Sonny" Campbell.
Campbell is leader of West Philadelphia's Fourth Ward, where Obama received 9,955 votes. Romney? Just 55. That's five fewer than McCain in 2008.
Campbell acknowledged that the odds are stacked in his favor in Philadelphia, where Democrats outnumber GOP voters by nearly 7-1.
"You are looking at black neighborhoods where you have 1,000 voters in a division and maybe seven Republicans," he said. "We are shocked if Romney got any votes."
Even so, Randall Miller, a history professor at St. Joseph's University, said politicians almost never get 99 percent of the votes anywhere except, perhaps, the towns where they were born.
He said the Democratic voter turnout effort deserved credit for the president's success.
"Ninety-nine percent is extraordinary, and it shows discipline as much as anything else," he said.
Philadelphia's numbers were tilted so far in favor of Obama that one incredulous Republican revived the specter of voter fraud.
House Speaker Sam Smith, musing over "staggering" turnout in some city precincts and reacting to wrong information that "90 percent of the precincts in Philadelphia County turned out over 90 percent of voters," called the ability to get such numbers "questionable."
Smith's math does not add up. Voter turnout in Philadelphia was around 60 percent, according to state election figures.
State Sen. Vincent Hughes (D. Phila.) responded swiftly. He said Philadelphians came out to vote because they were tired of the "hard-right" Republican agenda.
"If they believe there was a corruption of the process, then go to court and challenge it. Show the people of Pennsylvania," Hughes said. "Beyond that, shut up." Read More>
Obama could get up in front of the country and say he cheated for the good of the country and people still wouldn't care.
11-11-2012, 08:34 AMEven so, Randall Miller, a history professor at St. Joseph's University, said politicians almost never get 99 percent of the votes anywhere except, perhaps, the towns where they were born.In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005
Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid
To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
11-13-2012, 12:23 PM
Was the 2012 Election Stolen?
As the 2012 election approached, conservative enthusiasm grew. Mitt Romney was drawing huge crowds while Barack Obama spoke in half-filled stadiums. All the passion lay on the right while the left was discouraged with a promised messiah who proved merely a politician. And the prediction was that, in contrast to 2008, Republican turnout would dwarf the tuned-out and carry the day. Hence the shock November 6 eve. How could Romney lose, especially by such a wide electoral margin?
Maybe he didn't
At least not legitimately.
When I predicted Obama's re-election, I stated that, despite our country's inexorable leftist slide, Romney would still win on Election Day were it not for vote fraud. I explained that the Democrats could steal more than enough votes in crucial swing states to turn the election. And I still believe what I did then: electoral criminality put Obama over the top.
At the time, we heard stories about electronic-machine "glitches" switching Romney votes to Obama ones. And Patrick Moran, son of Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), was caught on tape facilitating vote fraud while Bridgeport, CT mayor Bill Finch essentially promised to commit same for a political partner in crime.
Since then, the indications of electoral criminality have been overwhelming. First there are the anecdotes, such as the court-appointed Republican poll watchers illegally expelled from 13 Philadelphia polling places in wards that, in most cases, went 99 percent for Obama; the poll observers who noted what they considered vote fraud but were powerless to stop; and the Democrats who actually bragged about voting more than once.
Then there are the statistics, such as this staggering fact: in 59 Philadelphia districts, Romney failed to get even one vote. Final Obama-Romney tally: 19,605 to 0.
Next, consider this report from The Columbus Dispatch:
Understand the significance. Years ago I was contacted by a Washington, D.C. community leader (who'll remain anonymous) who told me that he had "done some computer work for several candidates over the years in DC" and had conducted his own study of urban vote fraud. He said that inner cities' great transiency ensures that any given large metropolis will have a great number of voters who no longer live in their precinct of registration. These areas also have Democrat operatives known by the get-out-the-vote term "block captains" or "apartment captains," people who know the lay of the land and thus what registered voters have left town. So all they need do then is vote for these people or have others do so. This is very easy, too, with few voter-ID laws. And this is why Democrats oppose these laws so vehemently.
More than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote.
In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population: Northwestern Ohio's Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it's a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible.
Another 31 counties show registrations at more than 90 percent of those eligible, a rate regarded as unrealistic by most voting experts. The national average is a little more than 70 percent.
[...]Of the Buckeye State's 7.8 million registered voters, nearly 1.6 million are regarded as "inactive."
Now consider that Obama "won" Ohio by 100,000 votes. This means that to flip the state, Democrat surrogates had to illegally "activate" only 6.25 percent of its 1.6 million inactive voters.
Note also that Ohio secretary of state Jon Husted did ask Eric Holder's DOJ for help negotiating conflicting federal laws pertaining to the purging ineligible voters from the rolls. The DOJ's ultimate response? "No comment."
Yet a voter doesn't even have to be inactive, just disengaged. For example, when the aforementioned Patrick Moran offered advice on surrogate voting, he told an undercover reporter to masquerade as a pollster and call a targeted individual to make sure he wasn't planning to vote. And this is nothing new. In fact, liberal leg-thriller Chris Matthews himself admitted that it has been going on for years.
Then there is the case of the missing military ballots. As Rachel Alexander at Town Hall reported:
Frankly, it is inconceivable that military interest in voting could've dropped so drastically given conservatives' passion this election season. The damning conclusion? The Obama machine wants our soldiers to shed blood while it sheds their votes.
The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.
Striking as all this is, however, it's likely just a partial picture. As with all crime, it's a given that the discovered vote fraudsters represent only a tiny percentage of the total. And what about vote-fraud methods we haven't even thought of yet? Remember, the Democrats have been honing this act for many, many years.
And vote fraud is Democrat domain. Liberals are the situational-values set, people who for years insisted that right and wrong is relative and that if it feels good, do it. And what feels good to them at election time is stealing votes to win - and they do it. They relish it, in fact. Like the liberal who addressed Bill Clinton's it-depends-on-what-is-is infidelity and adamantly told me, "He did the right thing," leftists love the con. To pull a fast one like private eye Jim Rockford, fool everyone, and get away with it is like winning the Nobel Prize in Prevarication in their world. Thus, it's assured that there's no small number of liberals who are currently brimming with pride at having negated the votes of countless knuckle-dragging conservatives.
Having said this, we can't be sure about the exact magnitude of the vote fraud. But my judgment is this:
The election was likely stolen.
And whatever Barack Obama is presently, I don't believe he will be a legitimate president come January 20.
This is why Congressman Allen West was right not to concede his Florida race. And, frankly, if Romney believes that the election may have been stolen nationally, he should withdraw his concession.
Yes, but so is vote fraud on the scale perpetrated by Obama's minions. And people needn't fear creating a national crisis - we are already in a national crisis. The only question is whether good Americans will stand and be counted or allow 2012 to mark our official descent into banana-republic status.
"59 Philadelphia districts, Romney failed to get even one vote" And counties where there were more votes than voters?
Even Saddam Hussein would be envious of this. He couldnt get 99 or 100% of the votes in districts and he was stuffing the ballot boxes!
Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
11-13-2012, 03:49 PM
So what? Nothing is going to be done about it. I don't care if Obama went on national TV and proclaimed that the election was stolen. Republicans don't have the nads to do anything about it. Besides, the courts are stuffed with left leaning judges so they don't have recourse there. Welcome to the 3rd world people. This is what the "people" wanted. Oh, need I point out that where the term "the people" is thrown around are leftist/communist countries.The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
11-13-2012, 06:09 PM
I didn't even know we had early voting in Michigan until this election cycle. I've always voted in person, except the first time, when I was in college and voted absentee ballot. We use paper ballots at my precinct, and have a scanner that reads and tallies the votes. I always liked the old fashioned lever machines we used when I first started voting. I don't trust computer voting at all.
11-15-2012, 11:27 AM
A bit more on those Philadelphia precincts that went 100% for 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
Share on emailShare on printShare on redditMore Sharing Services
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."
Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats.
Cities are not only bursting with Democrats: They are easier to organize than rural areas where people live far apart from one another, said Sasha Issenberg, author of The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.
"One reason Democrats can maximize votes in Philadelphia is that it's very easy to knock on every door," Issenberg said.
Still, was there not one contrarian voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?
The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods - clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia - fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.
Upon hearing the numbers, Steve Miskin, a spokesman for Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, brought up his party's voter-identification initiative - which was held off for this election - and said, "We believe we need to continue ensuring the integrity of the ballot."
The absence of a voter-ID law, however, would not stop anyone from voting for a Republican candidate.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia who has studied African American precincts, said he had occasionally seen 100 percent of the vote go for the Democratic candidate. Chicago and Atlanta each had precincts that registered no votes for Republican Sen. John McCain in 2008.
"I'd be surprised if there weren't a handful of precincts that didn't cast a vote for Romney," he said. But the number of zero precincts in Philadelphia deserves examination, Sabato added.
"Not a single vote for Romney or even an error? That's worth looking into," he said.
Even Saddam Hussein only polled 98% of his fixed elections. Castro gets reelected with a lower percentage of the vote than Obama got in those precincts. Note that this "article" editorializes against its own premise repeatedly, but cannot refute the obvious. With a media like this, it's safe to assume that the regime will continue for as along as the press can remain solvent. Only a committed ideologue could present the premise that there wasn't even a single erroneous vote for Romney, not a single contrary voice among all of those precincts, and only a committed ideologue, or a complete moron, would accept it.
11-15-2012, 01:10 PM
Also, and I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but what if even 1 precinct somewhere in the country went 100% Romney?The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
11-15-2012, 09:03 PMBe Not Afraid.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|