Subscribe via RSS Feed

Unskewed!

[ 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.

    • DrDick says:

      Everybody (on the right) knows that all black votes are fraudulent. Only white, Christian, male property owners’ votes are legitimate.

  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!

    • somethingblue says:

      I thought blah votes only counted 3/5?

      • Malaclypse says:

        Well, Democrats seem to insist they count the same as a white man’s vote, which is why Republicans win statewide, but lose because of blah people.

        Dude has all of the subtlety of JenBob.

      • Warren Terra says:

        It’s a pet peeve of mine, but that’s more like negative 3/5ths. The slaveholders would have been perfectly happy to have each slave count as 10 rather than 3/5; after all, the Blacks counted as 3/5 of a person didn’t get to vote, and their 3/5-of-a-person value was used in apportioning seats, in order to give their oppressors greater representation with which to maintain their power.

        • CaptBackslap says:

          After I take over, invoking the 3/5 Compromise without being able to explain it will be punishable by community service as a tour guide in Colonial Williamsburg.

          • somethingblue says:

            Dude, I am aware of all constitutional traditions.

            (Which is fortunate for everyone, because I don’t think the stockings would flatter my legs.)

            • CaptBackslap says:

              Oh, I wasn’t referring to you specifically. It’s just constantly invoked as shorthand in ways that make it clear the person has no idea what it was about.

        • UserGoogol says:

          Yes, this annoys me too. Also, blacks per se weren’t singled out by the 3/5 clause, slaves were. Free blacks were counted as a full person, even though of course they typically weren’t able to vote either.

        • Pseudonym says:

          I still think it’s a convenient shorthand for the idea that some people count more than others, even if just for congressional apportionment and even when the 3/5-people had 0/5 votes themselves.

    • Warren Terra says:

      I hear the conspiracy is so widespread and pervasive that the Democrats are able to achieve their perfidy with aid of legion of accomplices, each of whom stuffs the ballot box with a single vote. Thus they are able to steal the election a tiny little bit at a time, almost imperceptibly, each one a chip knocked away from the foundations of the country our forefathers knew, taking us that much farther from a time when men were men and some were chattel.

    • Anonymous says:

      This guy’s disbelief that Romney could possibly be so unpopular in Philadelphia, the Hillbuz guy’s earnest belief that Cleveland would deliver Ohio to Romney. Have these people ever even been to a major city?!

    • John says:

      Actually, the Virginia “evidence” is even weaker!

    • Jim says:

      And then he argues that “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.”

      The chart he shows indicates that, in two of the “key swing states” – Pennsylvania and Ohio – turnout was actually down by about 7% from 2008. DEMOCRATS: THEY CAN’T EVEN STUFF THE BALLOT BOX RIGHT!

  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. Njorl says:

    Schadenfraude!

  10. 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.

    • Craigo says:

      Look at it this way – the demand for anti-Obama insanity is relatively inelastic, so any effort he puts towards improving the quality of his product will be simply wasted.

    • John says:

      My understanding is that this is just the beginning, and he will be gathering more evidence of fraud in those states. Or that’s the idea, anyway.

      • Malaclypse says:

        he will be gathering more evidence of fraud in those states.

        If Cthulhu loves me, this guy will get Donald Trump to fund Jerome Corsi’s investigation.

      • SP says:

        Ah, the time honored intellectual pursuit of, “I already know what happened, now I just need to find the evidence to prove it!”

        • Craigo says:

          Michael Lind was once reprimanded by his bosses at Heritage for not turning in a policy paper on time – the reason being that the bill he was to support had yet to be written. “The reprimand said, in effect, that at Heritage we write policy papers first and add the facts later.”

    • Glenn says:

      Well, you know, currently the NY vote total is about 1.5M below 2008 turnout… obviously we shipped out all of our Blahs to vote in swing states since they weren’t needed in NY. (And no, I haven’t actually seen them make this argument but I’m sure it’s coming.)

  11. 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

    CHARLES FOSTER KANE ELECTED!

    “We’ll have to go with this one”

    Charles Foster Kane defeated
    FRAUD AT POLLS!

  12. 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?”

      • Craigo says:

        I think people are in essence hearing, or choosing to hear, “Romney got zero votes in a handful of Philadelphia‘s 1,687 precincts.

  13. olexicon says:

    “Teabagger is unable to comprehend”

    The slogan for Election 2012

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. Manta says:

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

    • djw says:

      I think he learned a different lesson: that there are a lot of people out there who’ll pay me good money to lie to them.

      • sparks says:

        It seems he learned the lesson a little late i.e. he should never have apologized. Being a Republican stooge means doubling down when you’re wrong. It’s done so often, I think it’s coded in their DNA.

      • FMguru says:

        His pre-unskewed track record shows a dude trying to bootstrap his way onto the wingnut welfare gravy train so this turn of events is not only unsurprising, it was probably inevitable.

      • Corey says:

        Bingo. The Amazon referral links and the hilarious pork rinds ad give away the game: he doesn’t want to get off the gravy train just yet.

      • Manta says:

        Sad but plausible.

  18. 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.

  19. Anonymous says:

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

  20. 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




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site