The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dandi on November 16, 2010, 11:40:20 AM

Title: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: dandi on November 16, 2010, 11:40:20 AM
I was wondering when the "stolen election" meme would kick in. Let's see if they run with it.


Quote
HomerRamone  (388 posts)      Mon Nov-15-10 10:01 PM
Original message
"Once again, the [election] Portrait appears to be a fake."
 Election Defense Alliance Preliminary Election Assessment
November 11, 2010

by Jonathan Simon

<...>

At EDA we are still crunching numbers, reviewing disparities and anomalies, and will have much more detailed findings and analyses to report in the coming weeks. But the preliminary indications are clear: a dramatic nationwide pattern of “red shifts” (votecounts more Republican than exit polls) in the Senate and Governors’ races; an aggregate red shift in the contests for the House; a huge catalogue of “glitches” and anomalies, and quite a few “impossible” results across the nation, beginning with the barely scrutinized primaries.

The truth is that America, while increasingly polarized, remains very closely divided. It doesn’t take many added, deleted, or shifted votes to reverse outcomes across the land and to dramatically alter the Self-Portrait that emerges. Examining, for example, the Battle for the House, a total of fewer than 50,000 Democratic votes instead of Republican in the closest contests would have left the House under Democratic control. The red shift we uncovered for the House races nationwide was 1.7% or 1.25 million votes, twenty-five times those 50,000 votes that constituted the national Republican “victory” margin.

<...>

EDA is also probing the polling methodologies that have yielded red-shifted polls to match red-shifted elections, making everything seem right enough. We know, for instance, that the now universally adopted sampling protocol known as the Likely Voter Cutoff Model is a red-shifting, methodologically unjustifiable ploy that nonetheless accurately predicted last Tuesday’s results. EDA is asking “Why?” We expect to issue a detailed study of polling distortions and fudge factors in the coming weeks.

We at EDA are accustomed and fairly hardened to nights like last Tuesday by now. The most maddening part for us may well be listening to the Wednesday post-mortem analyses in which very astute pundits on, say, CNN or NPR read the tea leaves with straight faces and 100% faith in the gospel of the official results as their unquestioned premise. Official results that we, sleepless and still crunching numbers in an attempt to keep honest score at home, had already recognized as likely lies.

<...>

How many more elections can our democracy survive with the use of concealed vote-counting, where there is no meaningful oversight by citizens, election officials, or the media? How many more elections where the will of the public is ignored? Time is running out on our democracy.


MORE: http://electiondefensealliance.org/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9566438


Quote
glinda  (1000+ posts)       Mon Nov-15-10 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Seemed too dramatic a change to me in parts of MN anyways.
 This election smelled funny. I was particularly struck by the Republican running for Governor's remark of astonishment "I can't believe we didn't win" said with that tone of voice like "we were supposed to win ad I don't get it" tone.

Quote
Jackpine Radical  (1000+ posts)        Mon Nov-15-10 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. …and the beat goes on.
 We've been telling the Democratic politicians about this for years now. I personally brought it up with Feingold in 2004. He said something about Rush Holt looking into it. Nobody would take it seriously. They still don't. Jesus, Democrats may have actually won every election since 2000 (inclusive) and maybe even before. Think what the world might be like now if the true results had prevailed!

Quote
defendandprotect  (1000+ posts)        Mon Nov-15-10 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey which is when these comuters ....
 first began to come in --

LARGE computers used by MSm came in first -- mid-1960's --

smaller votin computers in late 1960's --

Before the large computers, MSM could only report actual vote tallies!

LARGE computers gave them new powers .... to PREDICT and CALL elections --

to PREDICT and CALl Electoral College Votes -- and to call elections by

winners and losers -- even to CALL an election for the winning presidential candidate!

What we saw in 2000 was simply a REVERSAL of those new powers.


There were journalists who began to investigate computer voter in the late 1960's --

because of very questionable results in Florida at the time!




The book they wrote can be read here ...


http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

Quote
BeFree  (1000+ posts)        Mon Nov-15-10 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yep
 In 2008 we turned out and overwhelmed the voting machines and won.
This time we didn't.


And there is no way to check the results, except as EDA is doing.
Otherwise, we got nothing. Massive turnout is our only recourse.

Quote
live love laugh  (1000+ posts)      Tue Nov-16-10 03:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. I knew it was stolen--again--and ppl even here blame and buy in to the lies. 
 Until election fraud is fixed we are ****ed.

 
 


 

 
 
 
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: true_blood on November 16, 2010, 11:43:01 AM
Quote
Jackpine Radical  (1000+ posts)        Mon Nov-15-10 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. …and the beat goes on. We've been telling the Democratic politicians about this for years now. I personally brought it up with Feingold in 2004. He said something about Rush Holt looking into it. Nobody would take it seriously. They still don't. Jesus, Democrats may have actually won every election since 2000 (inclusive) and maybe even before. Think what the world might be like now if the true results had prevailed!
Yeah, you're right Jackieboy. ::) :whatever:
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: TheSarge on November 16, 2010, 11:49:32 AM
Quote
How many more elections can our democracy survive with the use of concealed vote-counting, where there is no meaningful oversight by citizens, election officials, or the media? How many more elections where the will of the public is ignored? Time is running out on our democracy.

These nitwits won't be happy until the Dems get 99% of the vote like Saddam and Castro.

And even then there will be some Little Goon that complains that there was 1% that didn't go for their guy.
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: JohnnyReb on November 16, 2010, 11:51:45 AM
BOY! This election win was so big that it's gonna take them months to find and pull out all the brown stained facts.
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on November 16, 2010, 11:55:24 AM
I, for one, will hold out judgement until I see spreadsheets and the opinion of Truth-Is-All.  :lmao:

Actually, he has some fairly recent stuff here too:

LINK (http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=120&page=)
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: thundley4 on November 16, 2010, 11:57:49 AM
Not once has election fraud been proven in a GOP win, but there has been lots of chicanery verified by, the Dems.  How about SEIU members counting votes in Nevada this past election.
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: Carl on November 16, 2010, 12:06:32 PM
I just love how they push this with no idea what kind of lunatics it shows them to be.
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: BlueStateSaint on November 16, 2010, 12:14:15 PM
Gang, I thought that VRWC Memo 11.01.2010 (CLASSIFICATION:  TS-LOON) said that a mole with a post count of over 1000 was supposed to break this. :thatsright: :thatsright: :thatsright: :thatsright:
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on November 16, 2010, 01:14:52 PM
I'd love to see them spin themselves up so hard on this that they paint themselves into a corner and end up demanding photo ID for voting.

 :-)
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: Ralph Wiggum on November 16, 2010, 01:19:18 PM
Quote
sylvi (80 posts)        Tue Nov-16-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Verifiable paper ballots only
 We'll never know for sure until we have these nationwide.


How about requiring an ID to vote?  I have to show my drivers license to write a check (obviously not often anymore), buy alcohol (that either), etc....

And here's my laugh of the day:

Quote
crazyjoe (593 posts)      Tue Nov-16-10 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
13. we should move this thread to the "truth is all" tuity fruity forum


 :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: Ballygrl on November 16, 2010, 02:07:03 PM
You lost! seriously, did you think you'd win with an unofficial employment rate of over 9% and underemployment over 18%? and that's the just 1 of the problems, Obama looks like a fool on the world stage, he has no idea what he's doing, I could go on.
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: miskie on November 16, 2010, 03:37:46 PM
...YAWN....

Its always the same... If the D wins, 'the people have spoken' - if the R wins, 'ZOMG stolen election !!!11!!'
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: true_blood on November 16, 2010, 05:13:03 PM
You lost! seriously, did you think you'd win with an unofficial employment rate of over 9% and underemployment over 18%? and that's the just 1 of the problems, Obama looks like a fool on the world stage, he has no idea what he's doing, I could go on.
I put my little touch on it, I hope you don't mind BG. :wink: :cheersmate:
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: MrsSmith on November 16, 2010, 06:19:21 PM
Quote
EDA is also probing the polling methodologies that have yielded red-shifted polls to match red-shifted elections, making everything seem right enough. We know, for instance, that the now universally adopted sampling protocol known as the Likely Voter Cutoff Model is a red-shifting, methodologically unjustifiable ploy that nonetheless accurately predicted last Tuesday’s results. EDA is asking “Why?”

 :rotf: :rotf: Why did the polling show the same thing as the voting??  Why??  Why?????   :rotf: :rotf:  Something must be wrong!!11!1!111!!!!!11    :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Title: Re: Well, it took you long enough.
Post by: Ballygrl on November 16, 2010, 07:31:08 PM
I put my little touch on it, I hope you don't mind BG. :wink: :cheersmate:

Not at all! :cheersmate: