2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

You gotta be kidding me: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/b...all&adxnnlx=1349131649-X6H+dhnGd/D5dyUL6qSk7Q

And -- are we surprised?? http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=36789&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The deep end is calling! Old Pio is it for Marco Polo.

 

[bronconick]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

I'm waiting to see who's the first to crack and start linking the "un-skewed" polls.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Results are coming in for one of the top election predictors: halloween masks.

Obama is ahead of Romney...but it looks like we'll be propping up Nixon's corpse for another term.

F*k that. If it's not Robot Nixon count me out.

 

[bronconick]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

F*k that. If it's not Robot Nixon count me out.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s46jNfA9iMw?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s46jNfA9iMw?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Oh, so now you think these states are going to say, "Oh, I know you're GOP, go ahead and vote." The butthurt is just plain hilarious.

I love how I don't even need to watch mainstream media: I get all the talking points right here.

Reading comprehension fail; try again.

These are two different types of suppression. The old style was personal and directed. The new style is impersonal and directed. About the only good thing you can say about the new style is it's an improvement over the old "guess how many pickles in the jar" gambit.

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

As someone who's voted in Pennsylvania for the last 30 years, they check who you say you are every time you go to vote, or at least they do in my district.

They have a copy of your signature on file. When you go to vote, they have you sign the roll book, right next to your "signature of record." The poll workers, old and blind as they may be, do their best to check your signature against the record version. That's been enough to deal with the type of voter fraud that these new laws are supposed to protect against.

Every state has a system similar to that. The idea that it's either voter ID or the wild west is just factually inaccurate. That's why there are just a handful of actual voter fraud situations in every election. Voter fraud is still illegal and it's still checked for. This is a matter of intrusiveness and whether a couple dozen idiots who try it ever four years are worth stripping voting rights from several hundred thousand citizens. The answer to which is obvious, outside the Echo Chamber, which is why all these scams are getting struck down by the courts.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Every state has a system similar to that. The idea that it's either voter ID or the wild west is just factually inaccurate. That's why there are just a handful of actual voter fraud situations in every election. Voter fraud is still illegal and it's still checked for. This is a matter of intrusiveness and whether a couple dozen idiots who try it ever four years are worth stripping voting rights from several hundred thousand citizens. The answer to which is obvious, outside the Echo Chamber, which is why all these scams are getting struck down by the courts.

Several hundred million bazillion voters? Give it up, bunky. You and the rest of the ladies in the chorale secretly approve of voter fraud. It's your not-so-secret weapon in close elections. You're just too gutless to admit it.

"All" of these "scams" are "getting struck down by the courts?" Really? The SCOTUS decision on the Indiana law doesn't count?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Romney Has Been Practicing Debate 'Zingers' Since August

Believing that the debates will come down to a few key sound-bites, Romney has been memorizing and practicing "a series of zingers" that his team has written for him. Romney has practiced delivering these lines on aides since August.

Romney is hoping to make Obama look "smug" or "evasive" without coming off as an annoying scold. Specifically, Romney is hoping to goad Obama into making a comment like the ungracious "you're likable enough" dig he tossed at Hillary Clinton in the primary debates four years ago.

Romney's team worries that the President will get under Romney's skin, so they've had Senator Rob Portman of Ohio play Obama and hammer him about being a rich guy who doesn't understand average Americans. Portman has apparently been so successful in these attacks that Romney has been furious with him after the mock debates.

Obama's team, meanwhile, worries that the President will ramble on like a dispassionate professor instead of delivering succinct, leader-like responses. So they've been practicing precision.

Obama's team is also aware of the trap that incumbent George W. Bush fell into in the first debate with John Kerry eight years ago—namely that, as President, he was unaccustomed to being challenged and therefore got annoyed. Meanwhile, by being on the same stage with him Kerry looked Presidential.

John Kerry has played Romney in Obama's practice debates, and he and Obama's aides have tried to be "as annoying as a White House press correspondent"—all with the aim of annoying Obama and getting him to say something petulant.

Given Obama's existing lead in the polls, the team's overall strategy is to avoid blowing it rather than going in for the kill.

Don't like the title of the link because imho it's too one-sided, but it's pretty interesting regarding both candidates.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Simple question:

There are 15,000 registered voters in a district. 15,650 total votes are counted.

Is there any plausible explanation other than voter fraud?


Let's see who's the first to suggest it's merely an "honest mistake".....

 

[LynahFan]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Simple question:

There are 15,000 registered voters in a district. 15,650 total votes are counted.

Is there any plausible explanation other than voter fraud?

Did you catch any individual red-handed? Then you have no evidence and it never happened!

 

[jerphisch]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Simple question:

There are 15,000 registered voters in a district. 15,650 total votes are counted.

Is there any plausible explanation other than voter fraud?


Let's see who's the first to suggest it's merely an "honest mistake".....

Yes, the voters are just a small piece of the puzzle.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Reading comprehension fail; try again.

These are two different types of suppression. The old style was personal and directed. The new style is impersonal and directed. About the only good thing you can say about the new style is it's an improvement over the old "guess how many pickles in the jar" gambit.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[Rover]

Simple question:

There are 15,000 registered voters in a district. 15,650 total votes are counted.

Is there any plausible explanation other than voter fraud?


Let's see who's the first to suggest it's merely an "honest mistake".....

Not an honest mistake, simply that people have voted at the wrong precinct, either because they moved or their district lines did.

Looks like PA judge ruled no ID's for upcoming election but law can go into place afterwards. A very reasonable course of action. Give some time for people to comply.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Not an honest mistake, simply that people have voted at the wrong precinct, either because they moved or their district lines did.

You're not supposed to be able to vote in any precinct unless you are already on the registration rolls (or do same-day registration). In either case, your explanation does not work: the question remains, how can you have more votes cast than there are registered voters, absent vote fraud? *


* Question rephrased thanks to jerphisch's perceptive observation...though I suppose one could argue that voter ID law won't prevent this kind of fraud.

Funny, people have to show ID in order to register to vote, you know...why not just provide the voter ID card at registration? Anyone who's ever been to a local AAA office knows how quickly and easily one can obtain a picture ID.



it was not uncommon in Chicago in certain precincts in the 1960s for the ballot box to contain pre-marked ballots at the outset of the voting day. Allegations of something similar happened in Bridgeport CT in 2010; several of the polling places "ran out" of ballots during the day and they brought in some more in the evening..."don't worry about how to fill out the ballot; we've already taken care of that for you."

 

[Craig P.]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

Is there any plausible explanation other than voter fraud?

Someone hacking the voting machines.

(Granted, if they did, they'd certainly want to avoid a red flag like more total votes than registered voters, but on the other hand, as your post shows, it could be a stunningly audacious ploy that would count on the lock-step "voter fraud" chorus, especially since they would be predisposed to believe it to give some evidence underlying the ID laws.)

If not for the consequences of being caught, I think it would be illuminating to hack the vote somewhere in a completely absurd manner. e.g. give Romney a 1,000,000,000 to 0 win over Obama in a precinct.

 

[Rover]

You're not supposed to be able to vote in any precinct unless you are already on the registration rolls (or do same-day registration). In either case, your explanation does not work: the question remains, how can you have more votes cast than there are registered voters, absent vote fraud? *


* Question rephrased thanks to jerphisch's perceptive observation...though I suppose one could argue that voter ID law won't prevent this kind of fraud.

Funny, people have to show ID in order to register to vote, you know...why not just provide the voter ID card at registration? Anyone who's ever been to a local AAA office knows how quickly and easily one can obtain a picture ID.



it was not uncommon in Chicago in certain precincts in the 1960s for the ballot box to contain pre-marked ballots at the outset of the voting day. Allegations of something similar happened in Bridgeport CT in 2010; several of the polling places "ran out" of ballots during the day and they brought in some more in the evening..."don't worry about how to fill out the ballot; we've already taken care of that for you."

You need to tell that to both the judge and the governor of PA because the difficulty in obtaining a picture ID is why 1) a judge delayed the law, and 2) PA gubmint has decided in the last week to up their efforts in getting people an ID, realizing that prior efforts weren't getting the job done.

While in theory ID's are available, making 90 year olds wait at the DMV for four hours because the state didn't staff them enough to handle the volume is a problem, especially with upcoming deadlines to register, etc.

 

[Hopkinja]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

The lower court in PA decides to delay roll-out of the ID law until after the election.

Unfortunately, the judge also ruled that the ads telling people that ID will be required can continue to run. So the speculation is that will keep people without ID away, even though they can legally vote.

Hmmm. How soon till we can toss Corbett out on his ***?

 

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

If not for the consequences of being caught, I think it would be illuminating to hack the vote somewhere in a completely absurd manner. e.g. give Romney a 1,000,000,000 to 0 win over Obama in a precinct.

I'm surprised somebody like Anonymous hasn't done this already.

RCP NTU moves NC back to Romney.

On the Senate RCP has been relentlessly moving to the Dems. The NTU is still 52-48, where's it's been for three weeks, but the "all but TU" map now reads 47-43, with the 10 toss-ups almost evenly divided (6 D, 4 R). A big wave could move the Senate as far as 53-47 Republican or 57-43 Democratic. That's a huge number of contested races this close to Election Day.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part III: October Surprise!

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Oh, yeah? Well fook him and fook you!

http://houseofsunny.tv/2012/09/30/obamas-vision-of-our-future/