Subscribe via RSS Feed


[ 88 ] November 21, 2012 |

Creepy unskewed polls guy is back with the real reason Obama won–voter fraud!

[SL]: See also Weigel.


Comments (88)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Major Kong says:

    I can’t help but notice that the “voter fraud” states are, you know, black.

    I’m sure that was pure coincidence.

  2. Malaclypse says:

    Okay so I read this:

    Democrats are known for years for stuffing the ballot boxes in the city of Philadelphia, often it is the margin of victory for statewide candidates who lose state wide as Democrats but can win the election by gaining enough votes among the million registered voters, as well as other votes cast, in Philadelphia.

    And the only way it makes sense is if “state wide” (sic) means everywhere in the state except Philadelphia.

    And that exact same paragraph, with changes for geography, is the “evidence” of fraud in all four states. Everybody knows! For years! Blah people! Voting!

  3. IM says:

    Aren’t all these four states governed by republicans? So the republican governors and secretaries of state forged the election for Obama because…

    • Craigo says:

      Obviously there are traitors in the Republican party propping up Obummer. Chris Christie, is after all, History’s Greatest Monster (succeeding John Roberts, who held the title for less than six months).

  4. Craigo says:

    Every city and county in Virginia has two Republicans on its board foe elections, compared to one Democrat. FWIW, which to a hack like this guy is absolutely nothing.

  5. A VP at Stratfor wrote that email?

    There are multi-billion corporations and other important clients who pay big bugs to Stratfor for their intelligence services – mainly their analytical services.

  6. laura says:

    Does dude’s “evidence” consist of anything more than “In a lot of counties Obama got 90%+ of the votes which is suspicious given the state totals were a lot closer”? A quick search and I couldn’t find anything.

    There’s something about leaked emails but I’m scared to click because of spyware.

  7. BigHank53 says:

    Y’all might want to read this, which is the only decent profile I’ve seen of the guy. Shorter: I’ll take money from racist idiots.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      Well, this explains it:

      some graduate work at the University of Tennessee

      I assume Reynolds was his mentor?

    • Halloween Jack says:

      That’s a great find, especially since it shows how quickly the money hose turns on and off for guys like that. I think that it’s quite likely that “he’s a flash in the pan who scored some quick bucks, and that he’ll fade back into obscurity”, especially since he’s admitted that he had no real idea what the fuck he was talking about, but for someone with no real prospects who sees his only real chance for making $11K a month (for however long that might last), it’s understandable that he might try to fire up the boiler on the gravy train again. He certainly wouldn’t be the first person by a long shot to try to hitch his wagon onto some aspect of the fantastically lucrative election business as his version of the American Dream.

  8. Left_Wing_Fox says:

    Apparently the taste of reality was too bitter, so he’s spit it back out again.

  9. SP says:

    Maybe it’s just poor web page design (unpossible!) but I can’t find any arguments at all on that page other than the claim that Obama won via fraud, made simply by coloring four states with enough EV to swing the election. There’s a map, links to his other site, links to generic anti-Ofraudo articles, but nothing beyond bare assertion. At least make an effort, man.

  10. Bitter Scribe says:

    I was a little surprised by this. I thought this clown walked it all back after the election but I guess he just meant he was sorry for calling Nate Silver a fag.

    This all reminds me of the scene in “Citizen Kane” when it becomes clear that Kane has lost an election. The editors at his newspaper glumly say, “Well, we can’t use this headline” and hold up a paper that says


    “We’ll have to go with this one”

    Charles Foster Kane defeated

  11. It makes perfect sense that Romney got zero votes in some precincts. After all, nothing suspicious about that. No mistakes. No technical errors. Zero votes. Yup, nothing fishy there.

    • Craigo says:

      Exactly joe Jen. Nor is it fishy that some precincts in Utah and Wyoming.

    • John says:

      What is the specific claim being made here? That Democrats elected Obama by somehow erasing the tiny number of Romney votes in entirely Black precincts in North and West Philly?

      If you were going to commit fraud, the way would surely be to create phantom Obama votes in precincts like that, not to erase what would have to be a very meager number of Romney votes.

    • catbutler says:

      It does make perfect sense if you know anything at all about Philadelphia.
      Clearly the guy running that site knows nothing about the city at all. There are just under 1,900 precincts in the city. When I heard Romney got zero votes in 59, my first thought was “only 59?”

  12. olexicon says:

    “Teabagger is unable to comprehend”

    The slogan for Election 2012

  13. actor212 says:

    If you continue to click through, you’ll see the Wikileaks article refers to emails from 2008, and how they reference “ballot box stuffing” and how McCain was presented with the idea of challenging them but did not.

    No evidence. Whatsoever. Just an email alleging fraud.

    Still, it would be irreponsible not to speculate, I suppose

  14. GeoX says:

    So…the guy admitted his methodology was wrong, but now he’s implicitly walking this back by claiming, oh no, Obama didn’t really win; he actually cheated, and cheated, in such a way that, by some crazy coincidence, looks exactly the same as it would look if the polls, and Silver’s crunching thereof, were totally accurate. Yes, that seems plausible.

  15. tonycpsu says:

    OT: Yesterday, Booker’s name came up in the POTUS/VP speculation thread, and I have to say that participating in this charade certainly knocks him down a few notches on my short list. I thought he would make a pretty solid VP choice until this stunt.

    I understand that city politics are full of these games, but unless I’m missing some nuance of how this situation came about, this looks really shady to me.

    • Craigo says:

      I don’t quite understand what the problem was. The city charter explicitly provides for the mayor to break ties when it comes to filling vacancies.

      • Craigo says:

        That’s not a brief for Booker, btw. I’m not going to tell NJ Democrats who to run for Governor or Senator, but I’d prefer that if goes no further. But he did nothing improper, and to the extent that there was a chaos, it was from his opponents bum-rushing the dais.

      • tonycpsu says:

        I’m not saying he broke nay rules, but the walkout happened when the chair refused to recognize a speaker, a tactic that is very bad for democracy in most cases. Once the James backers walked out due to the chair refusing to recognize the speaker, Booker’s action was of course a legal play, but the fact that he showed up specifically to do this, with the chair refusing to recognize the opponents, etc. looks like an attempt to railroad a crony and squelch dissent.

    • Warren Terra says:

      The Booker speculation in the other thread featured solid reasons to doubt him, especially his opportunistic licking of Wall Street’s boots at Obama’s expense over the summer. A little sharp practice that stays within the rules while punishing the opponents for their ignorance, done to push his side in a political feud but not obviously to support corruption or the like, isn’t all high-minded Frank Capra Mr. Smith stuff, but I don’t see what’s so terribly wrong with it. It sure won’t help him work with the pro-Sharpe faction on his council, but (without knowing the backstory) I’m guessing that ship sailed long ago. This story is unseemly, and might be spun to damage him later, but I don’t see what’s so terrible in it.

      • tonycpsu says:

        Yeah, my point is that this is the kind of thing I expect from nearly every politician who gets to the nationally recognized level, but something like this definitely undermines Booker’s public image, which he seems pretty conscious of given how he uses social media, how he makes himself available to the beltway press, etc.

      • timb says:

        There are no perfect candidates. That is not my endorsement of Booker, just an observation that they all get soiled hands.

        h/t Tommy Carcetti

  16. Manta says:

    I am disappointed: he seemed a misguided guy who learned his lesson with the “unskewed” fiasco.

  17. Jay B. says:

    Bonus points: Barackofraudo might be the laziest fucking name of anything ever. Stupid even for him.

    Even “Ofrauda” would be better. And on the site he had it spelled “O’fraudo” like this was some Hibernian mischief. I don’t mind faux outrage and con artistry, but it has to have some artistry. Somewhere, Roger Stone is weeping softly about what’s come of his craft.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Important question for Chambers to answer: was this voting fraud done in a manly or effeminate matter?

  19. commie atheist says:

    Clicking on the “Post Comments” link certainly is entertaining. That’s about the third different thing it’s gone to since this came out a few days ago.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.