How Do You Explain This?

[GenuineRisk]

I read the Examiner article, Rupert (no need to read the WND one as A) WND is crazy town and B) the Examiner article cites the WND article as its source). It's stuff like this that really makes me think right-wing sites just think their readers are idiots (I don't think you're an idiot, Rupert). From the article:

"... in St. Lucie County, the unofficial vote count showed 175, 554 registered voters but 247, 713 vote cards were cast, coming to 141.10%."

Which sounds awful... if one's reading comprehension skills are not good enough to note the writer's use of "cards" not "ballots." And in a quick search of information, in fact, one so short it need go no farther than the comment section below the article itself, a person discovers that the St. Lucie County ballot was 2 pages long, meaning each person cast 2 "cards" though only one vote (one does wonder about the voter who only submitted one page- moron, or just really not interested in down-ticket races?) So, in fact, fewer than 124,000 votes were cast. Math, how does it work again?

The same comment includes a link to a source that breaks down the county vote and none of them went 100 percent for Obama.

So, there's how I explain that- the writer assumes his right-wing readers will blindly accept anything that reinforces their own prejudices, and so feels perfectly fine about lying to them, knowing full well those readers won't say, "This sounds a little preposterous" and do the research to see if the allegation has any merit.

[Antitrust32]

there were 59 voting districs i Philadelphia where the vote count was

Obama : 19,605
Romney: 0

100% Obama votes.

I sure as hell didnt care about Romney, but that is straight up embarrassing for my home city. It's either voter fraud... or I don't know what, but no phrases that come to my mind are positive.

There is something wrong with this country.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-1...asha-issenberg

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

there were 59 voting districs i Philadelphia where the vote count was

Obama : 19,605
Romney: 0

100% Obama votes.

I sure as hell didnt care about Romney, but that is straight up embarrassing for my home city. It's either voter fraud... or I don't know what, but no phrases that come to my mind are positive.

There is something wrong with this country.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-1...asha-issenberg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wwAs...eature=related

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

there were 59 voting districs i Philadelphia where the vote count was

Obama : 19,605
Romney: 0

100% Obama votes.

I sure as hell didnt care about Romney, but that is straight up embarrassing for my home city. It's either voter fraud... or I don't know what, but no phrases that come to my mind are positive.

There is something wrong with this country.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-1...asha-issenberg

'We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic'

a predominately democratic area voted for their candidate. not sure why it's a surprise, or that it means there's something wrong with this country.

[Antitrust32]

zero votes at all in 59 voting districts and you dont think that is a problem?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

zero votes at all in 59 voting districts and you dont think that is a problem?

because a predominant dem area didn't vote for romney? considering it's romney, no, i don't.

[hi_im_god]

i'm shocked that there wasn't even an erroneous vote for romney out of 19,000+.

that obama would dominate in largely minority urban precincts is no shock.

but unlike rupert's post, i don't think anyone can look at those stats and say you have to be a conspiracy nut to wonder how that happens.

i'm not saying that something bad happened. but i understand why someone else might.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'm shocked that there wasn't even an erroneous vote for romney out of 19,000+.

that obama would dominate in largely minority urban precincts is no shock.

but unlike rupert's post, i don't think anyone can look at those stats and say you have to be a conspiracy nut to wonder how that happens.

i'm not saying that something bad happened. but i understand why someone else might.

I would totally expect Obama to dominate in minority urban precincts. But there are still non-conformists among every group. You are going to get at least 2-3% of the people going the other way no matter what. There are always people out there that don’t follow the group. In addition, some of Obama’s policies such as support for gay marriage and his immigration policies are very unpopular with black people. There is no way a guy could get well over 99% of the vote in this case. If a guy with fairly obvious anti-black views ran, I think he would still get over 1% of the vote. It’s just human nature that every group has people that go against the crowd.

You need to look at history and human behavior. You are never going to get 100% agreement on anything. If you ask Americans who was responsible for 9/11, you won't even get 100% saying it was Bin Laden. There will be at least 2-3% that will have some other theory. You're not going to get 99 or 100% agreement on anything.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'm shocked that there wasn't even an erroneous vote for romney out of 19,000+.

that obama would dominate in largely minority urban precincts is no shock.

but unlike rupert's post, i don't think anyone can look at those stats and say you have to be a conspiracy nut to wonder how that happens.

i'm not saying that something bad happened. but i understand why someone else might.

exactly. obviously before the election you could say Obama was going to get 90% or more of the votes in those districts.. if it was 95% obama... or even 99% Obama, I could understand.

But 19,000 to 0 seems very fishy.

and to think out of 19,000 plus people, that everyone has the same views... just makes me

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

'We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic'

a predominately democratic area voted for their candidate. not sure why it's a surprise, or that it means there's something wrong with this country.

You dont think it strange that not a single person wasnt happy with the president or just wanted to be contrary or hell made a mistake that we are so often told those pesky confusing ballots can do? I find it hard to believe that every single person in those districts cast a secret ballot for the same person.

Hell there are still some people in Philly defending Andy Reid.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You dont think it strange that not a single person wasnt happy with the president or just wanted to be contrary or hell made a mistake that we are so often told those pesky confusing ballots can do? I find it hard to believe that every single person in those districts cast a secret ballot for the same person.

Hell there are still some people in Philly defending Andy Reid.

it's philly, what else can i say?

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...0_percent.html

There is a common thread: a total lack of evidence that any fraud occurred. Let’s start in Cleveland, where bloggers have been writing about more than 100 precincts where Obama won at least 99 percent of the vote and 16 precincts where Mitt Romney won no votes at all. “How in the world did this happen?” asked an anonymous author at YoloHub. “Third world dictators don’t even get 99 percent of the vote.”

But black Democrats do, sometimes, get 99 percent or more of the vote in black precincts. In 2008, Obama actually pitched a shutout in 18 Cuyahoga County precincts. And you would expect him to. In 2008, Obama won 97 percent of the black vote in Ohio. In 2012, it was 96 percent. In Pennsylvania this year, he won 93 percent of the black vote and 80 percent of the Hispanic vote. This was why Obama could clean up in precincts that are almost entirely black or Hispanic.


and note near the end, where it mentions a watchdog group conceding it mistakenly counted each page of a ballot as a vote-which meant turnout was 75%, not 150%.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I read the Examiner article, Rupert (no need to read the WND one as A) WND is crazy town and B) the Examiner article cites the WND article as its source). It's stuff like this that really makes me think right-wing sites just think their readers are idiots (I don't think you're an idiot, Rupert). From the article:

"... in St. Lucie County, the unofficial vote count showed 175, 554 registered voters but 247, 713 vote cards were cast, coming to 141.10%."

Which sounds awful... if one's reading comprehension skills are not good enough to note the writer's use of "cards" not "ballots." And in a quick search of information, in fact, one so short it need go no farther than the comment section below the article itself, a person discovers that the St. Lucie County ballot was 2 pages long, meaning each person cast 2 "cards" though only one vote (one does wonder about the voter who only submitted one page- moron, or just really not interested in down-ticket races?) So, in fact, fewer than 124,000 votes were cast. Math, how does it work again?

The same comment includes a link to a source that breaks down the county vote and none of them went 100 percent for Obama.

So, there's how I explain that- the writer assumes his right-wing readers will blindly accept anything that reinforces their own prejudices, and so feels perfectly fine about lying to them, knowing full well those readers won't say, "This sounds a little preposterous" and do the research to see if the allegation has any merit.

There were several cities in states like Colorado where there are now more registered voters than people. How can you have more registered voters than residents?

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There were several cities in states like Colorado where there are now more registered voters than people. How can you have more registered voters than residents?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by OldDog

If you try to take dead people off the voter registers, democrats will accuse you of trying to suppress votes. I'm not kidding. They will fight every attempt at eliminating voter fraud. When states try to take illegal aliens, convicted felons, or dead people off the rolls, the Justice Department and the dems will try to put a stop to it. If states try to make people show ID, the dems and Justice Department will try to prevent it. Any attempts to prevent voter fraud are fought tooth and nail.

[Danzig]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...im-Voter-Fraud

Irrespective of what the actually voting age population in Wood County was, the only question we need to answer is how many people in Wood County actually voted. And that is an easy question to answer. Just look it up at Google where a colorful map is provided. Click on a state, and then within the state you will find the vote breakdown for each individual county.


Now please correct me if my arithmetic is wrong, but the way I learned to add: 31,596 + 28,997 + 896 equals 61,489. Oh the horror! The fraud! Call the police! Only 57.87% of the 106,258 registered voters in Wood County actually voted! What happened? The one sentence the author of the petition was correct about: It's not humanly possible to get 108% of the vote! Perhaps that's why only 57.87% of the people on the voter rolls actually voted. Or if you want to go with that 98,213 number of citizens of voting age, it's still only 62.61%. It certainly isn't anywhere near 108%. But hey, arithmetic is hard for some people.



not sure how many here think dailykos is a good or a bad site, but they had the math.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...im-Voter-Fraud

Irrespective of what the actually voting age population in Wood County was, the only question we need to answer is how many people in Wood County actually voted. And that is an easy question to answer. Just look it up at Google where a colorful map is provided. Click on a state, and then within the state you will find the vote breakdown for each individual county.


Now please correct me if my arithmetic is wrong, but the way I learned to add: 31,596 + 28,997 + 896 equals 61,489. Oh the horror! The fraud! Call the police! Only 57.87% of the 106,258 registered voters in Wood County actually voted! What happened? The one sentence the author of the petition was correct about: It's not humanly possible to get 108% of the vote! Perhaps that's why only 57.87% of the people on the voter rolls actually voted. Or if you want to go with that 98,213 number of citizens of voting age, it's still only 62.61%. It certainly isn't anywhere near 108%. But hey, arithmetic is hard for some people.



not sure how many here think dailykos is a good or a bad site, but they had the math.

Dailykos is not a reputable site. However, they do get it right sometimes, just like WND. Their math may be right in this case. The bad thing about all of these sites is that they intentionally try to mislead you. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I always thought the republicans were a lot more honest than the dems. It wasn't often that they intentionally tried to mislead you. Nowadays, the two sides are pretty hard to separate. They are both extremely dishonest. You really can't take anything you read at any of these sites at face value. Even the stuff that sounds like it has to be right often turns out to be very misleading and sometimes turns out to be false.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Dailykos is not a reputable site. However, they do get it right sometimes, just like WND. Their math may be right in this case. The bad thing about all of these sites is that they intentionally try to mislead you. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I always thought the republicans were a lot more honest than the dems. It wasn't often that they intentionally tried to mislead you. Nowadays, the two sides are pretty hard to separate. They are both extremely dishonest. You really can't take anything you read at any of these sites at face value. Even the stuff that sounds like it has to be right often turns out to be very misleading and sometimes turns out to be false.

Waddaya mean? they are as reputable as Fox.....not sayin much huh...

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Dailykos is not a reputable site. However, they do get it right sometimes, just like WND. Their math may be right in this case. The bad thing about all of these sites is that they intentionally try to mislead you. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I always thought the republicans were a lot more honest than the dems. It wasn't often that they intentionally tried to mislead you. Nowadays, the two sides are pretty hard to separate. They are both extremely dishonest. You really can't take anything you read at any of these sites at face value. Even the stuff that sounds like it has to be right often turns out to be very misleading and sometimes turns out to be false.

but the post came from "hungrycoyote"...it has to be true.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Yikes........but that's only in Chi town...