The ‘Unskewed Polls’ guy who fooled a nation tries again
Dean Chambers, of UnskewedPolls.com
When last we left Dean Chambers, the Duffield, Va., resident was licking his wounds in Virginia’s coal fields, trying to figure out how he’d fooled himself and much of a nation into believing the Mitt Romney would win the election.
Chambers, 45, the founder of UnskewedPolls.com, ultimately decided he had incorrectly forecast that too few Democrats would vote. He admitted this mistake. Now, it appears he’s reconsidering.
Recently he launched a new website, BarackOFraudo.com. It seeks to understand how four states that he had incorrectly predicted would go to Romney — Virginia, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania — actually went to Obama.
He’s decided that was due to voter suppression and yes, voter fraud.
That millions of potential Republican voters, that vote for McCain in 2008 while far less enthused about doing so, did not turn out to vote for Romney in 2012 clearly proves the voter suppression campaign waged by the mainstream media and to some extent by the Democrat Party, worked quite well.
While the overall strategy was voter suppression, it is clear from viewing these stats that boosting the turnout in key swing states (the ones in yellow above) was taking place as well.
Without further or more detailed proof, there is objectively two ways to increase voter turnout on the side of those supporting Obama, as it clearly did happen in some key swing states: either get more real people out to vote who will vote for Obama, or stuff the ballot boxes and engage in a variety of vote fraud and vote scamming methods. Odds are quite likely, to maximize their odds of succeeding in getting President Obama elected, that they engaged in all of the above to make it happen.
I wrote a column about Chambers the Sunday after the election, when it appeared he was taking stock of the problem with believing the “news” he had created. Then, he was coming around to the idea that he’d been helping the emperor pick out his new clothes.
But Chambers seems to have switched horses, and is now arguing that he wasn’t wrong — that suppression and fraud handed the president a win.
The chief danger here is that he’ll fool himself — and others — again, which will not serve GOP interests in future elections.
On the other hand, he made some good money “unskewing” those polls and fooling Republicans before. Perhaps he’s simply up to his old tricks again, and writing stuff he knows people want to hear.
(h/t to Dan Radmacher)
November 20, 2012 - 3:57 PM
“he made some good money “unskewing” those polls and fooling Republicans before. “:
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Why let the cash cow dry up?
“But Chambers seems to have switched horses, and is now arguing that he wasn’t wrong — that suppression and fraud handed the president a win.”
I think we all know that Mr. Chambers, the quintessential semi employed fat dude with a web page, will find it easier to put money in the bank with a half baked conspiracy rather than admitting his original analysis was pulled from place where the sun don’t shine. Although I can predict pretty reliably that more than few bloggers here are reading his page right now, scratch’n their noggins, and saying “it all makes sense now”.
Has to, cause it’s a page on the internet.
As distasteful as the image is, I think that if Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh were to have a quiet evening together and somehow procreate, out would (or did) pop this guy Dean Chambers…
Practically every conservative I know was dumbstruck by Obama winning with the margins he did. Most of them have stated they believe that widespread voter fraud, vot counting fraud, or supression of Repiblican voters occured to tip the scales to Obama. Only a handful of the conservatives I know were not surprised by the election results. Some were completely devestated by them, saying nthey saw Romney winning with the huge margins that Obama wound up with. I guess they all got their ‘news’ from the same sources…
Chambers would fit in well with Fox news.
Romney lost and they need to get over it. Voter suppression did not keep the people that voted for McCain from going to the polls, they didn’t turn out for Romney because they didn’t want to vote for Romney.
They can all scream fraud, voter suppression, Hurricane Sandy, unmarried women, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause and Donald Duck caused Romney to lose. That doesn’t make any of it true, it just makes them feel better because rationalizations are easier to swallow than the truth. The truth is people just did not want Romney to be the leader of this country.
The election finished up pretty much as the real polls predicted. It takes serious delusion to talk about election fraud. The only serious disenfranchisement attempts come from the right.
“Odds are quite likely, to maximize their odds of succeeding in getting President Obama elected, that they engaged in all of the above to make it happen.”
Good to see he still has a solid grasp of probability.
scott whitaker@3.. You might be on to something, or maybe it was evil republican plot using DNA to create a hybrid creature with the best characteristics of Rush and Rove…not sure what that might be, but the result is clear.
scott whittakr@4:17
That one’s enough to give me nightmares for the rest of the week. The visual image which it calls to mind is like something out of a bad porno film.
There is a lot of money to be made telling people like Suzie, Henry, Chuck, Another Chuck, terps, pammala, Pistol Pete, Frank, Leon and lower case matt et al what they want to hear. Fox and FlimFlambaugh proved that.
The election finished up pretty much as the real polls predicted. It takes serious delusion to talk about election fraud. The only serious disenfranchisement attempts come from the right.
59 Philly precincts 0bama 100% of the vote
100+ Cuyahoga OH precincts 0bama 99% of the vote
I rest my case. No serious person believes these result were legit. You don’t even believe it.
There is a lot of money to be made telling people like Suzie, Henry, Chuck, Another Chuck, terps, pammala, Pistol Pete, Frank, Leon and lower case matt et al what they want to hear. Fox and FlimFlambaugh proved that.
Honey, we’ve covered this. Chambers like most of us assumed honest elections. The communists running the place knew better.
If you want some really stupid, conspiracy stuff about Obama you need to go to http://www.thirdterm4.com and listen to some guy named Stansbury hold forth. I don’t know where these nutcakes come from, but it is truly sad what they believe and try to get others to believe.
Just running a few numbers, if the expected vote for 0bama in the Philadelphia precincts is even as high as 96%, the chance of his sweeping 59 counties with a vote of 19620 to 0 is roughly 1 in 2 to the 236th power. That’s one in every 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chances (give or take a zero).
That’s roughly akin to finding one random BB somewhere within the Milky Way galaxy.
That’s what the MSM/CPUSA is asking us to believe.
Here’s a view on how insurance companies will try to deal with the Affordable Care Act now that the election is over.
http://billmoyers.com/2012/11/08/beyond-obamacare/
Except that, Obama did not sweep 59 Penn counties. So your calculation is meaningless, and even if they weren’t for that reason, they’d be a function of your silly assumptions, and meaningless anyway.
11.There is a lot of money to be made telling people like Suzie, Henry, Chuck, Another Chuck, terps, pammala, Pistol Pete, Frank, Leon and lower case matt et al what they want to hear. Fox and FlimFlambaugh proved that.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 20, 2012 @ 7:51 pm
Sandi,
Based on the questions raised with West’s unelection in FL, the miracle
turnout in Philly, numerous electronic quirks flipping Romney votes to Obama votes in multiple states and, total complaints at 70,000 it would seem a rational person would have some concern over the integrity of the
election process. Oh wait; you’re not rational; you’re liberal.
If rational people are so concerned for the election process why is voter suppression the only answer they ever seem to come up with? You people out yourselves. You lost and you cannot accept that minority neighborhoods would not vote for your loser. Cry me a river and float away on it. The browning of America will never be your friend for a very good reason.
Suzie, a precinct is not a county.
6.Romney lost and they need to get over it. The truth is people just did not want Romney to be the leader of this country.
Comment by Debbie — November 20, 2012 @ 5:08 pm
Obama received 50.6% of the popular vote. The difference in votes cast between the candidates was 2.6% of the total votes cast. If you also layer onto the ration for Sandi provided in post 18 the suppression of the military vote which historically leans conservative you might get a clue why a goodly number of citizens have valid and important questions about the election results. . .59 million plus voted Romney. The broom you sweep all this dirt under the rug with has got to be big enough to ride. . .why don’t you try it.
17.Except that, Obama did not sweep 59 Penn counties. So your calculation is meaningless, and even if they weren’t for that reason, they’d be a function of your silly assumptions, and meaningless anyway.
Comment by Dan Casey — November 20, 2012 @ 8:57 pm
Lypocrisy. The margin in FL was .8% = 73,189 votes out of 8,470,205 votes
cast with one county report a voter turnout of 141.0%. . .the only thing meaningless is your lypocrisy.
Except that, Obama did not sweep 59 Penn counties. So your calculation is meaningless, and even if they weren’t for that reason, they’d be a function of your silly assumptions, and meaningless anyway.
I didn’t say ‘counties’. I said ‘precincts’. But nice misdirection in the absence of an argument, Dan.
“In a city with 1,687 of the ward subsets known as divisions, each with hundreds of voters, 59 is about 3.5 percent of the total.” 19620 divided by 59 precincts is an average of just over 330 votes. Not big neighborhoods and easily vastly minority voters who would see nothing in Romney. And the truth is “The absence of a voter-ID law, however, would not stop anyone from voting for a Republican candidate.”
Stop whining. You lost for a very good reason, you had a loser for a candidate.
@15
Really, you where able to calculate a probability without knowing parameters. Fantastic, now you and Dean Chambers have even more in common. Why did you us a “2″ as the base of the exponent?
You lost and you cannot accept that minority neighborhoods would not vote for your loser. Cry me a river and float away on it. The browning of America will never be your friend for a very good reason.
One chance in 2 to the 236th power, Sandi. Know what that means?
I think there is justice in any Florida election bothering the TP/R’s.
DAN: Except that, Obama did not sweep 59 Penn counties. So your calculation is meaningless, and even if they weren’t for that reason, they’d be a function of your silly assumptions, and meaningless anyway.
SUZIE: “I didn’t say ‘counties’. I said ‘precincts’. But nice misdirection in the absence of an argument, Dan.”
————————————
Comment by Suzie, 11/20/2102 at 8:20 p.m.:
Just running a few numbers, if the expected vote for 0bama in the Philadelphia precincts is even as high as 96%, the chance of his sweeping 59 counties with a vote of 19620 to 0 is roughly 1 in 2 to the 236th power. That’s one in every 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chances (give or take a zero).
That’s roughly akin to finding one random BB somewhere within the Milky Way galaxy.
That’s what the MSM/CPUSA is asking us to believe.
Keep digging Suzie. It only makes the victory all the sweeter.
I am starting to wonder if Sandi and perhaps even Suzie are nom de plumes of Mr. Casey to keep this board a rocking? Sandi, your irrationtional love of Barack and your failure to be moderate on any position is highly suspect. Suzie, although I agree with some of your positions, your underlying tone of racism seems a little far fetched for someone who seems to be knowledgable on issues. Dan, pray tell.
“I am starting to wonder if Sandi and perhaps even Suzie are nom de plumes of Mr. Casey to keep this board a rocking?”
Another Chuck,
Sandi is real, and you can see her photo here, at a recent blog get-together. I am not her. Suzie, of course, is unreal — at least, the things she post here are. I’m not her, either.
You are horribly overestimating the amount of time and energy you believe I have if you believe I’m making them up. You’re not the first to voice that thought, however. . .
I do not believe we have covered every subject so you have no basis to claim I am not “moderate on any position” (not that we know how you define “moderate”). I am an easily found Roanoke native who some here have met or know. I have no tone of any racism, underlying or no. You are a poor judge on many levels apparently.
The browning of America will never be your friend for a very good reason.
Suzie, a precinct is not a county.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 20, 2012 @ 9:16 pm
I have no tone of any racism, underlying or no. You are a poor judge on many levels apparently.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 20, 2012 @ 10:35 pm
LYPOCRISY !
Sandi, I indicated that Suzie had some underlying racial tones, not you. But I do have a question for you. In your heart of hearts, do you feel that the Hamas is gaza are on a stronger moral footing than Israel, and are rightfully sending rockets (from Iran) into their country? Please don’t bother to respond if your answer is a noncommittal, I just want peace all over the world type thing. My question is specific.
The liberals can saddle up and ride their high horse. . .conservatives will do well to remember the screaming words of Hillary Clinton. . .”we have a right to question any administration!”
Accordingly, we do. The American public has a right to know about Eligibility, Fast & Furious, Benghazi and this Election. Actually, the
list is a bit longer and getting longer every day.
your underlying tone of racism
I’m not the least bit racist, Another Chuck. I was a supporter of Herman Cain. But I do believe in telling the truth about cheating in black precincts in the country. I would tell the truth regardless of demographic was involved.
have no tone of any racism, underlying or no
Actually, I think you do, Sandi. You believe blacks should be enabled to wallow in a state of government dependency for generation after generation. That’s just wrong.
What a waste of bandwidth.
Suzie, you cannot even articulate your own POV with honesty, leave mine alone. What you think, is irrelevant to humanity and to me.
Another Chuck, I reject the question of whether Hamas is “on a stronger moral footing than Israel”. NEITHER is right to encroach, continue the violence or start terror bombings. Retaliating 50 to 1 is wrong too. The Palestinians are living under a savagery that Israel nor their supporters would ever agree is moral. That does not justify terror bombings, it is simply a fact. They have a right to their homeland but not to violent means. Violence is not the answer for either. There is simply no such thing as “rightfully” sending rockets into Israel or vice versa.
I do not believe “peace all over the world” is achievable, but this continued war is bad for everyone.
BTW, I do not “love” Obama and I am not “irrational” either. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama, his policies, his administration and his campaign. If any right winger could grasp them and articulate them, I would be impressed. Why you all dwell on the idiotic, the far fetched, the cherry picked factoid, the made up memes and the wacky conspiracies (fueled by the right wing media) is your problem. Damned if I will bad mouth the President to make you feel better or gain bona fides with people I do not even respect.
Dan to Another Chuck:
“Sandi is real, and you can see her photo here, at a recent blog get-together.”
He might doubt the authenticity of the photo, Dan, as she was sitting next to me. Yes, Another Chuck, that wasn’t photo shop; that actaully happened and she was much more pleasant in person than on this blog. Glad to have met her.
Sandi Saunders:
“If any right winger could grasp them and articulate them, I would be impressed.”
Mark J did. You weren’t.
Note that suzie has no further comment about those “counties” she most definitely said Obama swept.
Leon might be even more delusional than suzie. Maybe they’re the same being.
You mean the Anglos finally got bamboozalled.What a historic moment!
Again, Mark J did the exact same cherry picking of statistics and ignored the economic crash, rendering his commentary right wing sour grapes and dishonest discourse. He did no such thing as articulate legitimate criticisms.
Suzie, I do find the fact that the black precincts, nationwide, voted virtually 100% for Obama to be confusing. The levels of unemployed in their community should be unacceptable to at least a much larger percentage. I’m not suggesting voter fraud as much as I am suggesting that somehow the opposing economic vision of conservatives is not reaching them.
Note that suzie has no further comment about those “counties” she most definitely said Obama swept.
Always focusing on typos and minutiae instead of the overall point. At least J.M. White was man enough to engage me on the argument itself.
Leon might be even more delusional than suzie. Maybe they’re the same being.
Comment by gdad — November 21, 2012 @ 12:32 am
Like most liberals on this blog you cannot refute other’s post with anything of substance and therefore resort to name calling and or labeling. So you just disagree to disagree; not having a clue why or
what the issues are about. Please find some other mindless task to do.
Suzie in #12:
59 Philly precincts 0bama 100% of the vote
100+ Cuyahoga OH precincts 0bama 99% of the vote
I rest my case. No serious person believes these result were legit. You don’t even believe it.
What were the demographics of the precincts? Were these precinct areas significantly poorer than average? Who had more volunteers getting out the vote in these precincts, President Obama or Romney? Could those voters have been part of the 47% that Romney said he didn’t care about?
Now that you’re back from Zimbabwe perhaps you can walk around these 100% Obama-voting precincts in Cuyahoga County and search for the mythical Romney voter.
Until the demographics suggest otherwise, and until you locate the mythical Romney voter, I will remain serious, yet accepting of the voting results.
Another Chuck,
In 2008, McCain won Utah with a 28 percent margin. In 2012, Romney won it with a 48 percent margin. There were entire counties that went 10-1 Romney.
I can’t find precinct-level data from Utah, but I’d bet there are precincts in which he took 98, 99 and 100 percent of the vote. I don’t believe Romney stole those, or that there was otherwise some fraud. I think voters there, for whatever reason, looked at him and said, “he’s like me” and pulled the level for that reason. Same thing with Obama. And besides that, there are old-fashioned machines in Philly and Cleveland who know how to deliver the vote. That has been going on forever in American politics.
OK, now so precincts = counties is a “typo.” Is there a subcategory? Like “brain typo?”
That’s not a type. It’s an error.
“Like most liberals on this blog you cannot refute other’s post with anything of substance and therefore resort to name calling and or labeling.”
–Leon
Leon, when you started posting here I refuted your comments with substance, repeatedly. But that didn’t matter to you and I quickly came to the realization, “What’s the point?”
#47 Leon, buddy, you’re exactly right that I can’t refute most of your posts with substance. That’s because the original post itself must have some semblance of rational substance first.
Ok Dan, I see your point, however, I still don’t get why certain groups, such as the black communties, march in lock step to pull the D lever. Are they unaware that their community(especially young blacks) have been the most adversely affected in the job market the last 4 years? Is voting for a democrat that culturally systemic? Did their lives improve the last 4 year? Is it about getting free stuff? I don’t know, but I get the feeling they don’t either.
“Leon, buddy, you’re exactly right that I can’t refute most of your posts with substance.” – gdud
It seems gdud has had an epiphany. Congrats, old man!
Like the poor white people who voted for Romney and his Plutocracy, maybe there is no understanding why some people vote the way they do, even if it seems against their economic interests. Black Americans have never had a black president to vote for before. Maybe the novelty of voting for Obama based on race is their reason. Maybe his lack of disdain, disregard and dismissal of them as worth worrying about unlike Romney, mattered. Maybe the Democratic party machines knocked on doors and did the GOTV thing. Maybe it is just historical fact that is their comfort zone. Maybe Romney got caught in one too many lies or discomfort zones. Maybe, like me, they genuinely like President Obama and believe his plan is the best one for ALL of us, not just the wealthy, like Romney’s. I do not believe we will ever know, that is the beauty and the mystery of your vote being your own.
My personal opinion is that it is the right wing of the TP/R Party that is “unaware” of how awful their message is to at least enough of the 62 million Obama voters who could be swayed their way. Even if you are dumb enough to think that 47% of the nation just likes their freebies and will vote for them every time, that still leaves the 3-4% margin Romney lost by that is in the possible range if the TP/R asylum was not run by the inmates.
Sandi Suanders:
“Black Americans have never had a black president to vote for before. Maybe the novelty of voting for Obama based on race is their reason”
Maybe? Maybe the Titanic sunk because there was a hole in the hull.
And John Wilburn claims to know every black American voter…
Sandi Saunders:
58.”And John Wilburn claims to know every black American voter…”
Spoken with no less authority that you…
58.And John Wilburn claims to know every black American voter
Not only that, he claims that everyone who voted for Obama did so for free stuff. You know, like David Geffen, Steven Speilberg, Colin Powell, and Oprah Winfrey. That’s John W-rigorously objective. Just ask him.
As long as the right clings to this fantasy that Obama won because he got all those black votes, they’ll continue to lose.
Romney and McCain were loser candidates with fail running mates and unattractive platforms. The Republican narrative has been soundly rejected. But please, continue to blame the fail on black voters. You won’t see another republican president any time soon. Please, keep yammering about “gifts”. The GOP will be done as a viable national party.
AnotherChuck, are you unduly troubled by voting populations that reliably vote Republican? Or are voting patterns just sinister when the groups at issue vote Democratic.
Warren:
“That’s John W-rigorously objective. Just ask him.”
That’s Warren – rushing to insult me to defend his pet Sandi.
Not all Obama voters voted for the free stuff, just most of them. I’m guessing you didn’t becuase, as the smartest person who ever lived, you can find other multiple reasons held together with a string of insults for me.
#52 Yeah, you see, mattie, it doesn’t work when you don’t use the whoole quote. Just sayin’.
Sandi, I know you like to pick and choose the facts to suit your current windmill of the day, but as I once told Dan, unless you actually have real facts, not those you create, but real facts or proof to support your assertions about me, leave my name out of it. You lump me in to a group with others simply because you don’t like my politics. That doesn’t make you brave or wise, it just means your prejudiced.
The fact of the matter is, I predicted Obama would be re-elected and I stated unequivocally the next day that I did not believe there was widespread voter fraud, nor would you ever hear me whine and cry about an “illegitimate presidency” like you and your liberal friends did after the 2000 election. For you to say their is money to be made in telling me what I want to hear is just plain dishonest and it speaks volumes about you – you, who have clearly demonstrated your propensity to only give credence to the facts that support your cause, you who is completely unwilling to even consider an opposing argument, no matter how objective and cogent, if you don’t like the conclusion. Just look how quickly you turned on Dan’s guest columnist when he wrote something you didn’t want to hear, despite how you supported him prior to the election.
So rave on with your half-truths, vitriolic attacks, revisionist history and yes, outright lies. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and waiving the Obama flag as his irresponsible fiscal policies drive us over the cliff, but leave my name out it.
John W., it’s no wonder she was more pleasant in person. Keyboard courage is easy to come by.
Chuck, on Nov. 6:
“Going to be an interesting four years. Looks like my prediction was correct. Obama will win the EC but lose the popular vote.”
Chuck:
“John W., it’s no wonder she was more pleasant in person. Keyboard courage is easy to come by.”
So I recognize and pay her that genuine compliment, in part for your and others’ benefit who have only met her here, and yet she vows to be purposefully unkind should we meet again. One thing I will say, though; I bet she would say anything she posts here in person to anyone…. as would I.
Yes Chuck, you prove often that “Keyboard courage is easy to come by”, especially that afforded from the safety of anonymity to hurl your attack.
If you are trying to say you do not listen to right wing media, I am going to call you out as a liar. It is evident. If you are trying to say that FOX et al is credible and has no penchant to carry water for the TP/R’s or that the “personalities” there do not make money selling their swill, I am going to call you out as a liar. If you are implying that because I do not know your identity I cannot know your sources or what you find credible, I will again have to call you a liar. The “real facts” are that FOX has been caught lying, distorting, creatively editing and most assuredly whipping up partisan frenzies, often. There are “real facts or proof to support” them all over the internet.
You cannot post your comments and then demand to be left “out of it”. You are correct that I did “lump” you in with the same group whose ideology and right wing memes you seem to support. You cannot claim not to have done me the same “courtesy” now can you?
If holding differing political stances and calling out those who do makes one “prejudiced”, then you’d do well to note that you’re also “prejudiced”.
“The fact of the matter is”, the facts speak for themselves. You went off on some tangent because you are in a snit, but I did not say you had “said” any of the things you accuse me of saying.
Where did I say you “whine and cry about an “illegitimate presidency”?
For me to say “their is money to be made in telling” your what you want to hear is an inference from the posts you make and the positions you hold. Are you now denying them? Then it is “just plain” honest.
Say what you want, it is not liberals who “clearly demonstrated your propensity to only give credence to the facts that support your cause”, considering the vile lies, distorted “facts” and uninformed posts the right wingers in here make, that is just plain laughable!
Right wingers in here almost never offer “objective and cogent” arguments, and nothing obligates me or anyone else to respect and consider the crap for posts that most put up.
I like conclusions that make sense, the right wingers, yourself included, seldom offer them. Mark J knew his commentary would be controversial, and unless he is as stupid as the post indicated, he knew exactly what he was doing. I “turn on” people who lie and distort the truth and yes, I do so regularly. I am not ashamed of that. I have no tolerance for BS. BUT, I do not do so from the safety of anonymity with nothing to lose, like you do.
I did not get the memo we were only to embrace Dan’s guest columnist. And he wrote something that was patently designed to push buttons. How is it that you do not know that? Because you DID want to hear it.
I will indeed “rave on”, as I am sure you and the other right wingers will. Show me an outright lie I have posted? Show me a “half-truth” I have posted? Who else have you called out for “vitriolic attacks, revisionist history and yes, outright lies”? There is a wide ass field here, but you are very selective for some reason. Care to explain why you are not just like the folks you refuse to call out?
You end with the exact reason you are not credible. IF we go “over the cliff” you are blind, hate-filled and willfully ignorant enough to only blame Obama. I am not!
Show us some more of that “keyboard courage” big guy!
So wow. Looks like Chambers was right. The chanceof 0bama winning the 59 counties was 1 in 2 to the 700th power. This is very very close to zero. It was voter fraud pure and simple. This thing was stolen.
We should be looking into the possibility of a redo.
#68 So, wow, looks like you’re still a stuck record full of BS.
#68 So, wow, looks like you’re still a stuck record full of BS.
Speaking of stuck records, Gdad, you insist I’m full of BS, yet you never challenge my numbers.. And you have steadfastly refused to deny there was cheating in the Philadelphia precincts. So since you agree with me, why are you making all this noise?
“That’s John W-rigorously objective. Just ask him.”
“That’s Warren – rushing to insult me to defend his pet Sandi”
Where’s the insult? I’m not smart enough to see it.
#70 I’ve already challenged your “logic.” And Dave Hicks absolutely destroyed it. Nuff said. As for cheating in Philly, I can’t prove there wasn’t any at all (can’t prove a negative, as you’ve said in the past) any more than you can prove there was some. Draw.
You’re a stuck record of BS.
I can’t prove there wasn’t any at all (can’t prove a negative, as you’ve said in the past) any more than you can prove there was some. Draw.
I asked if you believe those counts were legit. Your refusal to answer is your answer.
There was no cheating in the election. The bigger question is how long this blog will continue to be clogged up with this crap.
Although I should amend my statement. Certainly Rove was remarkably CONFIDENT of Ohio going for Romney – in spite of all polling to the contrary. You have to ask yourself…why on earth did he get so snippy with the Fox election team when they called Ohio for Obama? Why was he so completely convinced Ohio would fall to Romney? What had he put in place and what had been promised to him?
That’s where the real attention should be directed. What did Rove think he knew? He sure seemed disappointed.
Re: Kristen @ 12:04 pm
Exactly my thoughts at the time.
Excellent question Kristen!
Even if Ohio had gone for Romney, it wouldn’t have mattered. The only “battleground state” he won was North Carolina.
Sandi and Kristen, we should ask Dan to create a blog spam folder for any post containing “Alinsky rule”.
#75 I don’t think there’s any question that there were right-wing ATTEMPTS at cheating, which failed. And there absolutely were right-wing attempts to disenfranchise legitimate voters.
#73 “Your refusal to answer is your answer.”
Only in your imaginary world, suzie.