• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Where are these Clinton supporters the media keeps talking & polling about?

Irons

Deep Sixed
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
25,448
Likes
37,958
#1
Hillary Holds Voter Registration Drive in West Philadelphia – Why?…
Posted on August 16, 2016 by sundance
Today Hillary Clinton remains campaigning in Pennsylvania. Yesterday Vice President Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton campaigned in Scranton, a few hundred people showed up.

Today, Hillary held a voter registration campaign event in a High School gym in West Philadelphia – the attendance/turnout was essentially the same.



What’s going on?

Where are all these Clinton supporters the national media keep talking an polling about?

The answers are really quite simple. They’re in the same place they were during the 2016 Democrat primary race.

Take a close look at the prior election turnout results:



In 2008 38,111,341 (38.1 million) democrats voted in the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. [There was no dem primary in ’12]

Despite the media selling a narrative that the 2016 Democrat primary was motivating voters, the reality of the truth begs to differ.

In 2016 Total Democrat Turnout was 30,625,871 (30.6 million). That’s a stunning 20% decrease from 2008. …And it gets worse.

If you back out the 2016 California primary voters (Clinton -v- Sanders as a hotly contested battle of liberal ideologies), that removes 5.1 million primary votes. Leaving a total of 25.4 million primary voters. A stunningly low number of Democrats voted in the primary.

This low primary interest is clear evidence of the complete lack of enthusiasm for the Democrat side of the ticket; and this is despite the media hype 24/7 to manufacture a completely false impression.

Now go and look at the graph again:



2008 Republican primary turnout was 21,971,470 (21.9 million)

2012 Republican primary turnout was 19,214,513 (19.2 million)

2016 Republican primary turnout was 31,169,714 (31.1 million)

Yes, that’s correct. The 2016 total GOP turnout 31.1 million, was greater than the total DEM turnout 30.6 million.

That’s a 62% increase in Republican primary voting over 2012 (31.1 million -vs- 19.2 million). That’s a lot of enthusiasm on the GOP side of the ticket.

2016 is the first time in presidential history that Republican Primary voters numbered more than Democrat primary voters [during an open (no incumbent) presidential election.]

If you take out the California primary numbers from both parties [2.2 million (R) and 5.2 million (D)] The total primary vote is even more stunning. W/Out CA:

  • 28,902,408 voters chose a republican
  • 25,452,523 voters chose a democrat
Remember, historically Democrat turnout has crushed Republican turnout in primary elections. However, this year, for the first year, more votes were cast on the GOP side of the ticket than the DEM side.

Why is this important?

Every single poll uses “turnout” modeling and “party affiliation” modeling as part of their methodology and equation when they are turning poll respondent answers into actual poll data that is released.

Based on the primary results [31.1M (R) -vs- 30.6M (D)] there should be a slight edge to Republicans (R +1%) in every national poll *if the General Election is modeled on the primary turnout. However, not a single poll does this.



Another consideration. The increase between primary voters and general election voters ispretty consistent over multiple elections.

In 2008 the Democrat increase in vote participation (primary to general) was an increase of 74.69%.

  • 38,111,341 primary voters (Clinton V Obama)
  • 66,578,783 general election voters (Obama)
  • Diff + 28,467,442 (+74.69%)
In 2008 the Republican increase in vote participation (primary to general) was an increase of 164.58%

  • 21,971,470 primary voters (McCain v Romney)
  • 58,132,353 general election voters (McCain)
  • Diff +36,160,883 (+164.58%)
In 2012 the Republican increase in vote participation (primary to general) was an increase of 208.06%

  • 19,214,513 primary voters (Romney vs Gingrich)
  • 59,193,587 general election voters (Romney)
  • Diff +39,979,074 (+208.06%)
If you want to be heavily conservative and transpose 2016 general election prediction based on the 2016 primary results – Give Hillary a +75% increase (full Obama), and Give Trump +100% (that’s half of the normal GOP increase)

  • Candidate – – – – – – – Primary Votes – – – GE Projected Lift – – General Election Votes
  • Clinton ……………….. 30,625,871 x 75% = 22,969,403 53,595,274
  • Trump ………………… 31,169,714 x 100% = 31,169,714 62,339.428
What’s outlined there assumes: Hillary Clinton can capture the voter enthusiasm of Barack Obama in 2008 (jaw-droppingly unlikely), and Donald Trump can capture half of the enthusiasm of Mitt Romney (gobsmackingly most likely).

So do you see how the fundamental election landscape is factually set up to be the exact opposite of what the media is selling. The underpinning of the election landscape is the mirror image of the narrative the media sells daily.

Many would argue that’s too simplistic and the electoral college is based on individual states not total popular vote. However, I like K.I.S.S. because it’s rarely wrong, and when you look exclusively for voter enthusiasm and candidate engagement, the same statistics come out of key battleground states.

Total Primary Votes:

  • Virginia: 1,025,452 voted republican. 785,041 voted democrat.
  • Pennsylvania: 1,594,475 voted republican. 1,681, 427 voted democrat.
  • Ohio: 1,988,960 voted republican. 1,241,478 voted democrat.
  • Florida: 2,361,805 voted republican. 1,709,183 voted democrat.
  • Michigan: 1,323,589 voted republican. 1,205,552 voted democrat.
It really doesn’t matter which state you look at, the results are almost identical. There’s no anomalies within the data, it is what it is. Any poll can be used to deliver the answer you want to read within it; any set of statistics can also be used in a similar fashion. However, the bottom line is there’s more voter engagement on the GOP side of the binary contest.

That’s just a simple fact.

That’s also why Hillary Clinton is holding a registration drive in West Philadelphia, because the rest of the state is in an epic landslide in favor of Donald Trump. The high population urban center of Philadelphia is Clinton’s “only” hope of winning Pennsylvania.




Follow
Jack Posobiec❌ @AngryGoTFan

EMBARRASSINGLY LOW TURNOUT FOR HILLARY IN DEMOCRAT STRONGHOLD PHILADELPHIA


I’ve made a lot of phone calls in the past two days. Every state’s ground reports are identical to the primary modeling outlined above. The media is presenting a totally false view of the race.

The media is so severe about their position because the reality is so fundamentally against the outcome they desire. If you doubt your own commonsense, go back and look at the Trump -vs- Clinton rallies in Erie, Scranton, Altoona etc.



Erie:







Scranton:





Reading





Altoona:



It’s not going to be close folks. It won’t even be close:






When Clinton stops spending in Pennsylvania it’s not because she has it in the bag, the exact opposite is true. It’s because further spending is futile….

There is zero enthusiasm for inauthentic Hillary Clinton. None.

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...-registration-drive-in-west-philadelphia-why/
 

Thecrensh

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,033
Likes
4,344
#2
It really doesn't matter what the crowds look like; if you remember, Romney was packing venues left and right. Obama was speaking to half-empty halls in 2012, yet won re-election in a near landslide. What matters is how many "voters" the left can bring to the poll...in the shape of crafty computer code for the voting machines, dead voters voting 2-3 times each, inner city voters voting for HRC at a 110% rate (more voters than registered). That's all that matters in the end...
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,172
Likes
21,484
#4
It really doesn't matter what the crowds look like; if you remember, Romney was packing venues left and right. Obama was speaking to half-empty halls in 2012, yet won re-election in a near landslide. What matters is how many "voters" the left can bring to the poll...in the shape of crafty computer code for the voting machines, dead voters voting 2-3 times each, inner city voters voting for HRC at a 110% rate (more voters than registered). That's all that matters in the end...
Bingo! There will be no election...mark my words, it's all a show for the sheeple
 

Alric

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
7,268
Likes
1,792
#6
There is no evidence of group voter fraud going on in the US, and every time someone says there is when you look into it you find out they are full of shit. Every time they look into, which is every election, there is maybe a handful of cases of fraud by individuals. Never groups. So these are cases where a single individual person votes twice, and it is like 5 people across the entire country. No evidence of mass voter fraud or dead people voting, or machines rigging the results.

You know what there is a lot of evidence for though? There is a lot of evidence that shows that people who are totally uninterested in a candidate, and some who even hate the person will hold their nose and go vote for them anyway. Most people probably have no real interest in going to see Hillary or Trump in person and they are probably going to vote for them anyway.

You can see this with Ron Paul, when he was running. He had the strongest base of core supporters out of anyone. However the apathetic crowd didn't support him, mostly because the media wouldn't cover him at all so they weren't aware of his positions on stuff. The apathetic voters with little knowledge of the topics at hand actually makes up a large portion of the electorate.

Why do you think money often wins elections? Who are these election ads aimed at? It isn't for people like us, we all know about Hillary and Trump. No ad is likely to change anyone's mind here. Those ads are aimed at the people not paying attention to anything.
 

Uglytruth

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,677
Likes
6,198
#8
There is no evidence of group voter fraud going on in the US, and every time someone says there is when you look into it you find out they are full of shit.
Well.......... someone is. Getting 100% or more is impossible........... but just .............
 

Usury

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,118
Likes
3,274
#9
Apparently they're all at Walmart
 

Alric

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
7,268
Likes
1,792
#10
Well.......... someone is. Getting 100% or more is impossible........... but just .............
No one ever got over 100%. I been on this forum a long time, and I have seen all those claims people saying over 100% of the people voted in an area and stuff like that. I looked into all of them my self and every times the claims were blatantly false. Just flat out lies. They say over 100% of registered people turned out to vote and then it turns out it was like 60% or something, not even remotely close to what they claimed. It is not even like someone made a mistake, but the people flat out lied and made up a false news stories to make it seem like there was rigging going on when there wasn't. Usually the claims come out of some place like info wars.

You will see it again this election. Info wars will make up a fake news story, someone on this forum will post it and say the election was rigged. I will fact check the story find out it is totally made up, post the actual numbers and sources. Someone will argue with me for a little bit, then once it is proven beyond any doubt that they were tricked they will stop replying and disappear. Then next election the same person is going to show up and be like, "Hey remember that story a while back about how they rigged the election?" Even though they damn well know it was a fake story and it was proven in the thread.

Given the amount of times we repeat this, if you people don't remember perhaps you should go get checked for Alzheimer's.
 

Irons

Deep Sixed
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
25,448
Likes
37,958
#11
Chris Matthews: Get 'excited' about Clinton campaign, or 'don't vote'
Published August 17, 2016
FoxNews.com
Facebook243 Twitter172 livefyre1714 Email Print


FILE: April 26, 2011: NBC host Chris Matthews at the 2011 Time 100 Gala ceremony in New York. (REUTERS)

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has a striking message for disaffected Democrats: Get “excited” about Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the possibility of the party controlling Washington, or “don’t vote.”

The “Hardball” host offered the advice on air Tuesday night, while griping about some Democrats’ pessimistic attitude toward the election.

“Here’s my question. Why don’t they get excited on the left, and the center-left, about maybe … getting to run the government for four, or eight years, winning the House and the Senate, winning the White House? … Think about winning big,” Matthews said.

He continued: “Hillary Clinton’s got a very good chance right now of winning very big and running the table and actually getting to set U.S. policy on a progressive side of things. Get excited about that. If that’s not [enough] to get you to vote, don’t vote.”
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
4,853
Likes
6,476
#12
upload_2016-8-17_18-24-20.png


Donald Trump is going to win and they just can't bring themselves to admit it.
 

southfork

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,593
Likes
12,854
#13
View attachment 84361

Donald Trump is going to win and they just can't bring themselves to admit it.
We know they skew the polls to show Killary is ahead, the latest polls showing her so far ahead are going to backfire , her supporters are going to say fk it shes way up I will stay home, those who know she will destroy whats left of this country will make dam sure to go vote for Trump. Guy across the street said to me yesterday I hope your voting for the right guy for president, and then he said and I mean guy, I thought sure he was a killary voter but nope.
 

Irons

Deep Sixed
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
25,448
Likes
37,958
#15
Trump recruiting 'election observers' to scout for fraud

By Joseph Weber

Published August 17, 2016
FoxNews.com
Facebook1032 Twitter1043 livefyre10788 Email Print




NOW PLAYING
Trump camp weary of voter fraud: 'The perception is there'

Donald Trump is getting pro-active about concerns the White House race could be “rigged” against him, by recruiting “election observers” to help monitor the vote, though details of the program are unclear -- and are raising concerns about potential Election Day confrontations.

The campaign put out the call for volunteers in a newly added page on its website. The page asks visitors to register to become an election observer and help Trump “stop Crooked Hillary from rigging this election.”

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged,” Trump said Friday at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, before suggesting he could lose the battleground state if “cheating goes on” in some parts. Noting the state no longer has a voter ID law, he urged voters to “go around and watch other polling areas and make sure it’s fine.”

Trump appears to be tapping into concerns among members of both parties -- Republicans who warn about voter ID fraud and Bernie Sanders supporters who complained about a “rigged” system during the senator’s primary race against Hillary Clinton. Those claims were bolstered by leaked party emails showing Democratic leaders discussing how to undermine him.
 

oldgaranddad

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
3,689
Likes
5,522
Location
On the top shelf.
#16
There is no evidence of group voter fraud going on in the US, and every time someone says there is when you look into it you find out they are full of shit. ....
So statistical impossibilities of Obama getting 100% of the vote in multiple districts along with 100%+ voter turnout in multiple districts doesn't prove there is voter fraud going on? You can't tell me that these are the works of single lone wolf misguided individuals. In order to accomplish these results you need a conspiracy of more than one individual.

So if it is not fraud how do you explain the results? Do us a favor, don't try. The left tried to trot out some election officials and statistics professors. The left wing media itself decided to bury those so called news pieces as fast as possible because it was too embarrassing to them.
 

90%RealMoney

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
4,796
Likes
4,023
Location
Left Flank, Oceana...Locked and Loaded!
#17
Listened to Coast To Coast a.m. the other night. George had some woman on Bev something or other. She is an expert at voter fraud, electronic voting, etc. She said there are no more paper ballots at all in this country. Also said anyone could change the results very easily by manipulating the main state machines that tally all votes for that state. She said a kindergartener could do it, doesn't require any computer knowledge.
 

oldgaranddad

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
3,689
Likes
5,522
Location
On the top shelf.
#18
Listened to Coast To Coast a.m. the other night. George had some woman on Bev something or other. She is an expert at voter fraud, electronic voting, etc. She said there are no more paper ballots at all in this country. Also said anyone could change the results very easily by manipulating the main state machines that tally all votes for that state. She said a kindergartener could do it, doesn't require any computer knowledge.
In NY the votes are still on paper but tallied electronically. This state usually will muck things up royally but at least with the new voting machines they actually did something correct.
 

Irons

Deep Sixed
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
25,448
Likes
37,958
#19
In NY the votes are still on paper but tallied electronically. This state usually will muck things up royally but at least with the new voting machines they actually did something correct.
We still fill out paper ballots out here in the backwoods of Michigan. Then feed it into the machine ourselves.

.
 

Ebie

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,240
Likes
1,641
#20
Listened to Coast To Coast a.m. the other night. George had some woman on Bev something or other. She is an expert at voter fraud, electronic voting, etc. She said there are no more paper ballots at all in this country. Also said anyone could change the results very easily by manipulating the main state machines that tally all votes for that state. She said a kindergartener could do it, doesn't require any computer knowledge.
Not a matter of computer knowledge? Maybe. But, it would require editing access to the results table then.
 

Alric

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
7,268
Likes
1,792
#21
So statistical impossibilities of Obama getting 100% of the vote in multiple districts along with 100%+ voter turnout in multiple districts doesn't prove there is voter fraud going on? You can't tell me that these are the works of single lone wolf misguided individuals. In order to accomplish these results you need a conspiracy of more than one individual.
That never happened. If it did happen that would prove voter fraud but seeing as how it didn't, and is an entirely made up story. It doesn't.

So if it is not fraud how do you explain the results? Do us a favor, don't try. The left tried to trot out some election officials and statistics professors. The left wing media itself decided to bury those so called news pieces as fast as possible because it was too embarrassing to them.
It never happened, that is how I explain it. Your denial of reality isn't evidence. You should fact check your news sources more often, especially if you rely on places like info wars for your news.

Listened to Coast To Coast a.m. the other night. George had some woman on Bev something or other. She is an expert at voter fraud, electronic voting, etc. She said there are no more paper ballots at all in this country. Also said anyone could change the results very easily by manipulating the main state machines that tally all votes for that state. She said a kindergartener could do it, doesn't require any computer knowledge.
Isn't that the same guys who believes the government is controlled by aliens. Lizard people and the Atlanteans and stuff? You would pick the most insane and far out there person as your news source. There is a reason he is on in the middle of the night, when almost no one is listening.
 

GOLDZILLA

Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
7,078
Likes
6,451
#22
It doesn't matter who gets in we still lose something. The only real power we have is who and what gets our money. If we all stop feeding the beast it will turn into a skeleton.
 

GOLDZILLA

Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
7,078
Likes
6,451
#23
Well we all know they aren't at work.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,172
Likes
21,484
#24
Reading through this thread it's finally becoming apparent that you folks are coming to the realization that elections are for show. It's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes!!!
 

oldgaranddad

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
3,689
Likes
5,522
Location
On the top shelf.
#25
That never happened. If it did happen that would prove voter fraud but seeing as how it didn't, and is an entirely made up story. It doesn't.
So this is a made up story?

From CBS News, one of those articles where the media tried to rationalize the vote count.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/romney-earned-zero-votes-in-some-urban-precincts/

Or Philly.com
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...voting_wards__Mitt_Romney_got_zero_votes.html

or The Cleveland.com reporting that the vote, incredibly, was unanimous in Obama's favor in nine Cleveland precincts.
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentra...ahoga_county_precinct_map_s.html#incart_river
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,172
Likes
21,484
#26
So this is a made up story?

From CBS News, one of those articles where the media tried to rationalize the vote count.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/romney-earned-zero-votes-in-some-urban-precincts/

Or Philly.com
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...voting_wards__Mitt_Romney_got_zero_votes.html

or The Cleveland.com reporting that the vote, incredibly, was unanimous in Obama's favor in nine Cleveland precincts.
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentra...ahoga_county_precinct_map_s.html#incart_river
Not made up....just ignored by the American people because they were told by their teevees that this was nothing and to simply move along with their pathetic lives
 

Uglytruth

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,677
Likes
6,198
#27
I've seen you argue with so many people on here..................... So read for yourself.

http://www.decodedscience.org/2012-election-vote-fraud-allegations/20582

A Statistical Method for 2012 Election Vote Fraud Allegations

November 19, 2012 by Mike DeHaan 3 Comments

1
5

“Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election” – but hopefully, only once. Image by DonkeyHotey

After the 2012 presidential election, several allegations of vote fraud were leveled at US political parties.

This article cannot resolve these concerns; rather it demonstrates a statistical method to examine the likelihood that such an allegation is reasonable.

We take a pro forma approach to the polling statistics because any allegation could become a serious legal issue, needing more research and documentation than we can support.

Even so, this article is awash in references.

One Sample Concern: Wood County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration” raised one concern.


________________
Would you like to see more articles like this?
Support This Expert's Articles, This Category of Articles, or the Site in General Here.
Just put your preference in the "I Would Like to Support" Box after you Click to Donate Below:



________________

The important quote is “Mr. Obama won the majority of Wood County’s 108% of registered voters.”

That page also has a helpful comment by “Sluderlaw” about student voters from Bowling Green State University.

The above article links to “Ohio voter registration list nearly 500,000 smaller than in 2008: Statistical Snapshot.” Wood County’s statistics are near the bottom of the table.

There were 106,258 registered voters in 2012 versus a voting age population of 98,213 per the 2010 US Census.

  • 106,258 / 98,213 = 108%, or an excess of 8%.
  • 106,258 – 98,213 = 8,045 excess names.
This puzzle might best be addressed by auditing both the 2010 census and Ohio voter registration processes, but that’s outside the scope of this statistical methods article.

The “Good News” headline, above, implies that the 8,045 excess registrations led to President Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney in Wood County, Ohio.

The 2012 Presidential Election in Wood County Ohio

Are Bowling Green State University students responsible for the high level of registrations and votes in Wood County, OH? Image by americaspower

Final Unofficial Results in Wood County Ohio” states that Obama received 31,596 votes or 50.9% of the vote; Romney 28,997 or 46.7%. The remaining 1,745 votes of 62,338 total were split among other candidates. Readers are welcome to provide a link to an official, final result when available.

  • 50.9 – 46.7 = 4.2% margin for Obama.
  • 31,596 Obama votes – 28,997 Romney votes = 2,599 lead for Obama.
A statistics-minded scientist must now test the “null hypothesis” that these results do not suggest vote fraud in Wood County.

The 108% Allegation in Wood County
The allegation, or alternate hypothesis, is that there were 8,045 excess names illegitimately registered to vote, leading to 8,045 excess votes cast for Obama in Wood County in the 2012 presidential election. Therefore removing 8,045 of Obama’s votes would correct the results.

  • If you subtract those votes from the total votes, you get 54,293. (62,338 – 8,045 = 54,293)
  • If you subtract those votes from Obama’s votes, you get 23,551. (31,596 – 8,045 = 23,551)
  • Subtract Obama’s corrected total from Romney’s unchanged total, and you get a 5,446 vote lead for Romney. (28,997 – 23,551 = 5,446)
  • Romney’s percentage of the corrected vote would be 53.4%. (28,997 / 54,293 = 53.4%)
  • Obama’s percentage of the corrected vote would be 43.3$ (23,551 / 54,293 = 43.3%)
  • Romney would have won the county with a corrected margin of victory of over 10%. (53.4 – 43.3 = 10.1%)
Click to Read Page Two: Extracting Information from Opinion Polls
© Copyright 2012 Mike DeHaan, All rights Reserved. Written For: Decoded Science
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,172
Likes
21,484
#28
I've seen you argue with so many people on here..................... So read for yourself.

http://www.decodedscience.org/2012-election-vote-fraud-allegations/20582

A Statistical Method for 2012 Election Vote Fraud Allegations

November 19, 2012 by Mike DeHaan 3 Comments

1
5

“Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election” – but hopefully, only once. Image by DonkeyHotey

After the 2012 presidential election, several allegations of vote fraud were leveled at US political parties.

This article cannot resolve these concerns; rather it demonstrates a statistical method to examine the likelihood that such an allegation is reasonable.

We take a pro forma approach to the polling statistics because any allegation could become a serious legal issue, needing more research and documentation than we can support.

Even so, this article is awash in references.

One Sample Concern: Wood County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration” raised one concern.


________________
Would you like to see more articles like this?
Support This Expert's Articles, This Category of Articles, or the Site in General Here.
Just put your preference in the "I Would Like to Support" Box after you Click to Donate Below:



________________

The important quote is “Mr. Obama won the majority of Wood County’s 108% of registered voters.”

That page also has a helpful comment by “Sluderlaw” about student voters from Bowling Green State University.

The above article links to “Ohio voter registration list nearly 500,000 smaller than in 2008: Statistical Snapshot.” Wood County’s statistics are near the bottom of the table.

There were 106,258 registered voters in 2012 versus a voting age population of 98,213 per the 2010 US Census.

  • 106,258 / 98,213 = 108%, or an excess of 8%.
  • 106,258 – 98,213 = 8,045 excess names.
This puzzle might best be addressed by auditing both the 2010 census and Ohio voter registration processes, but that’s outside the scope of this statistical methods article.

The “Good News” headline, above, implies that the 8,045 excess registrations led to President Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney in Wood County, Ohio.

The 2012 Presidential Election in Wood County Ohio

Are Bowling Green State University students responsible for the high level of registrations and votes in Wood County, OH? Image by americaspower

Final Unofficial Results in Wood County Ohio” states that Obama received 31,596 votes or 50.9% of the vote; Romney 28,997 or 46.7%. The remaining 1,745 votes of 62,338 total were split among other candidates. Readers are welcome to provide a link to an official, final result when available.

  • 50.9 – 46.7 = 4.2% margin for Obama.
  • 31,596 Obama votes – 28,997 Romney votes = 2,599 lead for Obama.
A statistics-minded scientist must now test the “null hypothesis” that these results do not suggest vote fraud in Wood County.

The 108% Allegation in Wood County
The allegation, or alternate hypothesis, is that there were 8,045 excess names illegitimately registered to vote, leading to 8,045 excess votes cast for Obama in Wood County in the 2012 presidential election. Therefore removing 8,045 of Obama’s votes would correct the results.

  • If you subtract those votes from the total votes, you get 54,293. (62,338 – 8,045 = 54,293)
  • If you subtract those votes from Obama’s votes, you get 23,551. (31,596 – 8,045 = 23,551)
  • Subtract Obama’s corrected total from Romney’s unchanged total, and you get a 5,446 vote lead for Romney. (28,997 – 23,551 = 5,446)
  • Romney’s percentage of the corrected vote would be 53.4%. (28,997 / 54,293 = 53.4%)
  • Obama’s percentage of the corrected vote would be 43.3$ (23,551 / 54,293 = 43.3%)
  • Romney would have won the county with a corrected margin of victory of over 10%. (53.4 – 43.3 = 10.1%)
Click to Read Page Two: Extracting Information from Opinion Polls
© Copyright 2012 Mike DeHaan, All rights Reserved. Written For: Decoded Science
I'm not arguing with you (at least I don't think I am). I believe there is voter fraud. Perhaps you're arguing with me :)
 

Uglytruth

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,677
Likes
6,198
#29
Sorry shootist (my post should have been clearer, sorry), but your name's NOT Alric that only sees honesty and integrity in these immoral degenerates in suits that tell us they have everything under control. My brother lives in Wood county........
 

Alric

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
7,268
Likes
1,792
#30
So this is a made up story?

From CBS News, one of those articles where the media tried to rationalize the vote count.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/romney-earned-zero-votes-in-some-urban-precincts/

Or Philly.com
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...voting_wards__Mitt_Romney_got_zero_votes.html

or The Cleveland.com reporting that the vote, incredibly, was unanimous in Obama's favor in nine Cleveland precincts.
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentra...ahoga_county_precinct_map_s.html#incart_river
First off the last article doesn't even say what you claim it says. It says that third party people got votes, Romney just didn't get any. So Obama didn't get 100% of the votes. In the other two, 100% of the votes isn't "over 100%" and is entirely possible. Especially when you look at small districts or subsections of districts and stuff. That happens all the time. In none of those is there over 100% turn out or anything fraudulent like you are trying to claim.
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,632
Likes
7,960
Location
State of Jefferson
#31
I found one!



Milwaukee Rioter Who Brags On Video About Looting White-Owned Businesses — Is a Hillary Supporter

#ImWithHer
Milwaukee residents rioted and looted businesses this past weekend after a black criminal waving a stolen gun was shot dead by a black police officer.

The rioters targeted police, police cars and “white owned” businesses.

One of the rioters, Jayrome Williams, bragged about looting white-owned businesses on Twitter.
Jayrome is a Hillary supporter.

Via Vessel News:

Rioter Jayrome Williams brgged about looting “white-owned” businesses on Twitter.

We about to loot white owned businesses #MilwaukeeLootCrew pic.twitter.com/3VYVtTSvf0

— Jayrome Williams (@BrotherTooTurnt) August 14, 2016

He brought his sister with him to loot the businesses.

.....
 

Alric

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
7,268
Likes
1,792
#32
One Sample Concern: Wood County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration” raised one concern.
The wood country one is one I specifically remember looking up, and that is indeed one of the fake news stories. The numbers are entirely made up, you can check. Wood county had 64,342 show up out of 108,014 registered to vote. That isn't 108%. It is a completely made up story. And no they didn't go back to change it, I remember on the night it happened when people were complaining and I went to check. It was made up from the start.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/Research/electResultsMain/2012Results/20121106turnout.aspx
 

Uglytruth

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,677
Likes
6,198
#33
Tell it to Bernie supporters in CA.
 

Irons

Deep Sixed
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
25,448
Likes
37,958
#34
Iowa State Fair Poll Results: Donald Trump 56%, Hillary Clinton 44%…
Posted on August 17, 2016 by sundance
The Iowa State Fair has a booth where attendees are given the opportunity to cast their vote on the 2016 presidential race by placing a corn kernel in a jar.

The poll is obviously unscientific; however, nor is it manipulated by the media, it simply is an opportunity for fair goers to show who they are supporting in the upcoming presidential race.

The fair is in day #5 and 43,702 people have visited the WHO TV Channel 13 News Booth to register their opinion. Here are the results so far:



(link) and Website (link)

Candidate Donald Trump is holding an actual 12 point lead (56% -vs- 44%) with actual people. 43,702 actual people. [Trump 24,284 votes, Clinton 19,418 votes]

Quite a difference from the media polling, huh.
 

southfork

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,593
Likes
12,854
#36
SOMEONES LYING ARENT THEY???????????????
New Clinton-Trump poll shows statistical tie in Iowa



JAMES Q. LYNCH For The Globe Gazette
Updated Aug 11, 2016




CEDAR RAPIDS – Thirteen weeks before Election Day, a Suffolk University poll shows the race in Iowa — often considered a “must win” state for both candidates — is a statistical dead heat with GOP nominee Donald Trump leading Democrat Hillary Clinton by 1 percentage point.


Iowa State Fair Poll Results: Donald Trump 56%, Hillary Clinton 44%…
Posted on August 17, 2016 by sundance
The Iowa State Fair has a booth where attendees are given the opportunity to cast their vote on the 2016 presidential race by placing a corn kernel in a jar.

The poll is obviously unscientific; however, nor is it manipulated by the media, it simply is an opportunity for fair goers to show who they are supporting in the upcoming presidential race.

The fair is in day #5 and 43,702 people have visited the WHO TV Channel 13 News Booth to register their opinion. Here are the results so far:



(link) and Website (link)

Candidate Donald Trump is holding an actual 12 point lead (56% -vs- 44%) with actual people. 43,702 actual people. [Trump 24,284 votes, Clinton 19,418 votes]

Quite a difference from the media polling, huh.
 

Oldmansmith

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,861
Likes
4,967
Location
Taxachusetts
#39
Trump is the only mainstream presidential candidate who has a higher negative than Hillary.

Hillary wins in a landslide. Get ready for it.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,172
Likes
21,484
#40
Polls and statistics mean nothing. The game has already been set and Trump will not be allowed to win in any scenrio