Thread: Here’s a very scary thought:

Is This Hillary Clinton Voter Fraud?

By David Zeiler, Associate Editor, Money Morning • @DavidGZeiler • May 18, 2016



Voter fraud in the United States in 2016 seems like it shouldn't even be possible, but a series of troubling incidents in the Democratic primaries have some pointing fingers at Hillary Clinton.

Starting in the Iowa caucuses and straight through the contests in West Virginia and Nebraska earlier this month, critics have noted multiple election abnormalities that almost always favor the Democratic front-runner.

And the criticism is not only coming from disgruntled supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (although they're plenty angry). Numerous voices on the left suspect election fraud on the part of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

"The Democratic presidential primaries have been a Wagnerian Ring Cycle of electoral 'shenanigans,' cynical rule-bending and outright voter suppression," Riley Waggaman wrote in a March 28 Huffington Post article.

Take Iowa, for example, which Clinton won by a razor-thin margin of 0.3%.

"Too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems," noted the Des Moines Register in an editorial.

In several cases, the number of votes at a caucus exceeded the number of people registered. And the "extra" votes favored Clinton.

And yet the chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic party, Dr. Andy McGuire, refused to re-check the results. McGuire's vanity license plate reads: "HRC2016."
But this is much bigger than Iowa…



And yet the chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic party, Dr. Andy McGuire, refused to re-check the results. McGuire's vanity license plate reads: "HRC2016."
But this is much bigger than Iowa…

Exit Polls Point to Possibility of Widespread Voter Fraud

Left-wing political newsletter CounterPunch has published an entire series of articles examining voter fraud problems in the Democratic primaries.
One persistent problem CounterPunch found was discrepancies between exit polls and final results.

Unlike the many polls taken in the months leading up to election, exit polls are conducted on the day of the election at carefully chosen polling stations. Great care is taken by the pollster (Edison Research, which supplies the data to most major news organizations) to weight the results for accuracy.

So exit polls tend to be much more accurate than pre-election polls.

In the Republican primaries, CounterPunch found that the exit polls were very good at predicting the actual results, falling within the margin of error 24 out of 25 times. And the slight deviations favored no GOP candidate in particular.

Not so on the Democratic side. Here the results were outside of the margin of error (3.5%) in 17 out of the 25 contests. And in 16 of those, the miss was in Hillary Clinton's favor. By in her favor I mean that her actual results were higher than what the exit poll indicated.

It gets crazier. In nine contests, the exit polls underestimated Clinton's numbers by 7% or more – which should be almost impossible.

The most likely explanation is some sort of Hillary Clinton voter fraud. It's not that far-fetched.

You see, many of the voting machines used throughout the United States, particularly older ones, are easily hacked. And in most cases, such tinkering leaves no traces.

"Hundreds of jurisdictions throughout the United States are using voting machines or vote tabulators that have flunked security tests," notes CounterPunch.
Of the states where the exit polls underestimated Clinton's results by 7% or more, two-thirds used voting machines 10 years old or more – the most vulnerable to hacking.

There's no hard proof, but if the causes behind these issues were random — be they with the exit polls or faulty voting machines — why do they invariably favor Clinton?

And there's still more evidence of possible Hillary Clinton election fraud. These allegations are the most disturbing of all…

Did Clinton Supporters Suppress the Vote in New York and Arizona?


http://moneymorning.com/2016/05/18/i...n-voter-fraud/

Originally Posted by lorrie

How you think Obama won his second term?

I thought it was because he lost the woman vote by the largest gender gap since the fifties when Gallup started measuring it. Was it from voter fraud or rigged machines somewhere? Other than the gender gap explanation, I honestly don't know why Romney lost.

Analysis: Why Romney lost

By Peter Hamby, CNN Political Reporter
Updated 5:48 PM ET, Wed November 7, 2012

Before Republicans went looking for answers Tuesday night, some of them went looking for the remote.

When it became clear about midnight that President Barack Obama was safely on the way to re-election, a handful of cranky and inebriated Republican donors wandered about Romney's election night headquarters, angrily demanding that the giant television screens inside the ballroom be switched from CNN to Fox News, where Republican strategist Karl Rove was making frantic, face-saving pronouncements about how Ohio was not yet lost.

Romney's 'all' proved not enough

Rove was wrong, of course.

But the signs of desperation inside the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center on Tuesday night were symptomatic of a Republican Party now standing at a crossroads, with not much track in sight.

How did Romney lose a race that seemed so tantalizingly within reach just one week ago?

"We were this close," one of Romney's most senior advisers sighed after watching the Republican nominee concede. "This close."

Little support from young, minorities

Some answers are easy.

Romney lost embarrassingly among young people, African-Americans and Hispanics, a brutal reminder for Republicans that their party is ideologically out of tune with fast-growing segments of the population.

Obama crushed Romney among Hispanic voters by a whopping 44 points, a margin of victory that likely propelled the president to victories in Nevada, Colorado and possibly Florida.

Five things we learned from Election Night

The stunning defeat alarmed Republicans who fear extinction unless the party can figure out how to temper the kind of hardline immigration rhetoric that Romney delivered during his Republican primary bid.

"Latinos were disillusioned with Barack Obama, but they are absolutely terrified by the idea of Mitt Romney," said GOP fundraiser Ana Navarro, a confidante to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio.

Analysis: Obama won with a better ground game

Sandy upsets campaign 'momentum'

Beyond the ugly math staring them in the face, Romney's top aides and the Republican heavyweights who populated the somber ballroom Tuesday evening offered an array of explanations for their loss.

With some of them double-fisting beers and others sipping bourbon, members of Romney's team blamed several factors that were, in some ways, beyond their control.

Many campaign aides pointed the finger at Sandy, the punishing superstorm and October surprise that razed the East Coast and consumed news coverage for what was supposed to be the final full week of campaigning.

Analysis: Obama's new Democratic majority

It upset the dynamic of a campaign that had been reset during the first debate in Denver, where Obama delivered a wilting-flower act in full view of the American populace that allowed Romney to seize control of the race and set the terms for the final fall sprint.

The storm, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told CNN on Sunday, "broke Romney's momentum."

After being criticized in the media for focusing on "small things" like Big Bird and "Romnesia," Sandy offered Obama a chance to once again look presidential.

There also are very real hard feelings inside the Romney camp about the way New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, seemed to lavish praise on Obama in the wake of Sandy's destruction, allowing Obama to appear bipartisan just as Romney was attacking him for being petty and partisan.

"He didn't have to bear hug the guy," complained one Romney insider.

"It won't be forgotten easily," grumbled another about Christie.

Opinion: Obama will get little time to celebrate

Social conservatives blame squishy positions

As Romney aides began the soul-searching that usually follows a loss, Republicans outside the campaign began pointing fingers at the team.

Some social conservatives were quick to rip open barely healed wounds, claiming that Romney's squishy positions on abortion and same-sex marriage -- closely scrutinized during both of his Republican primary campaigns -- left grass-roots Republicans uninspired.

"What was presented as discipline by the Romney campaign by staying on one message, the economy, was a strategic error that resulted in a winning margin of pro-life votes being left on the table," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List.

Some wondered aloud about the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as Romney's running mate, suggesting that a Republican from a more winnable battleground state might have made a difference.

GOP retains grip on House

"Rob Portman would've been worth 1% in Ohio," said former Ohio GOP Chairman Kevin DeWine. "Marco Rubio would've been worth a point in Florida. Bob McDonnell would've been worth a point in Virginia."

The Romney team and his super PAC allies, some Republicans are already saying, ran a banal series of television ads and allowed their candidate to be defined early on by Obama as an outsourcing plutocrat who wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt.

Their pushback seemed feeble for most of the summer and early autumn. And crucially, Romney never seemed to articulate a clear rationale for the presidency.

The campaign's decision to air a misleading ad in Toledo media market about Chrysler moving Jeep production to China during the closing days of the race is also emerging as a prime reason for Romney's loss in the state he needed to win most.

One senior Ohio Republican called the Jeep ad a "desperate" move and said the Romney campaign walked into a "hornet's nest" of negative press coverage.

Nick Everhart, a Columbus-based ad maker, blamed the Ohio loss, in part, on the Romney campaign's "poor media buying."

But an adviser to one prominent Republican governor who campaigned for Romney said the campaign's problems were more fundamental.

"Obama ran a very smart but very small campaign, which he could afford to do because he was running against a very small opponent," this Republican said. "The fundamentals of the election were the same all along, and they were this: When there's an incumbent no one wants to vote for, and a challenger that no one wants to vote for, people will vote for the incumbent. At no point did Romney give people any reason to vote for him, and so they didn't."

Democrats keep control of Senate

Democrats' strong ground game

Romney may never have been the GOP's dream candidate, but even if he were, Republicans would still have been forced to confront another troubling structural problem on Election Day.

Democrats showed decisively that their ground game -- the combined effort to find, persuade and turn out voters -- is devastatingly better than anything their rivals have to offer.
In 2004, Republicans tapped the science of microtargeting to redefine campaigns. That is now ancient history.

"When it comes to the use of voter data and analytics, the two sides appear to be as unmatched as they have ever been on a specific electioneering tactic in the modern campaign era," Sasha Issenberg, a journalist and an expert in the science of campaigning, wrote just days before the election proved him right. "No party ever has ever had such a durable structural advantage over the other on polling, making television ads, or fundraising, for example."

The Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee entered Election Day boasting about the millions of voter contacts -- door knocks and phone calls -- they had made in all the key states.

Volunteers were making the calls using an automated VOIP-system, allowing them to dial registered voters at a rapid clip and punch in basic data about them on each phone's keypad, feeding basic information into the campaign's voter file.

But volunteer callers were met with angry hang-ups and answering machines just as much as actual voters on the other end of the line.

It was a voter contact system that favored quantity over quality.

At the same time, the campaign's door-to-door canvassing effort was heavily reliant on fired-up but untrained volunteers.

Obama organizers, meanwhile, had been deeply embedded in small towns and big cities for years, focusing their persuasion efforts on person-to-person contact.

The more nuanced data they collected, often with handwritten notes attached, were synced nightly with their prized voter database in Chicago.

After the dust had cleared, the GOP field operation, which had derided the Obama operation and gambled on organic Republican enthusiasm to push them over the top, seemed built on a house of cards.

"Their deal was much more real than I expected," one top Republican with close ties to the Romney campaign said of the Obama field team.

Sources involved in the GOP turnout effort admitted they were badly outmatched in the field by an Obama get-out-the-vote operation that lived up to their immense hype -- except, perhaps, in North Carolina, where Romney was able to pull out a win and Republicans swept to power across the state.

Multiple Romney advisers were left agog at the turnout ninjutsu performed by the Obama campaign, both in early voting and on Election Day.

Not only did Obama field marshals get their targeted supporters to the polls, they found new voters and even outperformed their watershed 2008 showings in some decisive counties, a remarkable feat in a race that was supposed to see dampened Democratic turnout.

In Florida's Hillsborough County, home to Tampa, the Obama campaign outpaced their final 2008 tally by almost 6,000 votes. In Nevada's vote-rich Clark County, Obama forces scrounged up almost 9,000 more votes than they did four years ago.

Tuesday's outcome laid bare this truth: The two campaigns placed very different bets on the nature of the 2012 electorate, and the Obama campaign won decisively.

Romney officials had modeled an electorate that looked something like a mix of 2004 and 2008, only this time, Democratic turnout would be depressed, and the most motivated voters would be whites, seniors, Republicans and independents.

Heading into Election Day, the Romney campaign's final set of internal poll numbers showed their candidate with a 6-point lead in New Hampshire, a 3-point lead in Colorado, a 2-point lead in Iowa, a 3-point lead in Florida and near ties in Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Ohio was their biggest problem. According to the campaign's internal polls obtained by CNN, Romney was trailing in the must-win state by a full 5 points on the Sunday before the election, the last day of tracking.

Officials in Boston dispatched Romney for a pair of 11th-hour campaign stops in Cleveland and Pittsburgh, a show of Election Day vitality and confidence that was, in reality, a last-ditch attempt to move the needle with just hours until the polls closed.

The Obama campaign was of a different mindset.

Late last month, a few days before Halloween, four members of Obama's senior campaign staff -- deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, pollster Joel Benenson, battleground state director Mitch Stewart and press secretary Ben LaBolt -- flew from Chicago to Washington to brief reporters on the state of the race.

With the president's campaign on the ropes in the wake of his awful
debate performance in Denver, the quartet had a straightforward, math-driven sales pitch.

The share of the national white vote would decline as it has steadily in every election since 1992. There would be modest upticks in Hispanic and African-American voter registration, shifts that would overwhelmingly favor the president. And Obama's get-out-the-vote operation was vastly more sophisticated than the one being run by Romney and the Republican National Committee.

On Monday, the night before the election, the Obama campaign was optimistic their vision would pan out. A relaxed group of about 60 campaign staffers including campaign manager Jim Messina decamped to Houlihan's, just up the street from their Chicago headquarters on Michigan Avenue, to drink beers and take in Obama's final speech in Des Moines on C-SPAN.

The following morning, bagels were delivered to headquarters for breakfast. Pizza was on the menu for dinner. Some staffers in the in the campaign's press wing turned on the Oxygen channel to watch a marathon of "America's Next Top Model" -- a "mindless escape," in the words of one campaign operative. When the results started flowing in, each chapter appeared to unfold as planned.

The office burst into loud cheers when Pennsylvania and Wisconsin turned blue early in the evening, two very large pieces of mortar in a growing electoral roadblock for Romney.

And when Ohio was called for the president, the year-long avalanche of G-chats, e-mails and text messages between reporters and campaign sources fell silent as Obama-world closed ranks to celebrate their hard-won -- and meticulously planned -- victory.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/why-romney-lost/

November 9, 2012

Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History
by Jeffrey M. Jones
Obama wins women's vote; Romney has eight-point edge among men

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama won the two-party vote among female voters in the 2012 election by 12 points, 56% to 44%, over Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, Romney won among men by an eight-point margin, 54% to 46%. That total 20-point gender gap is the largest Gallup has measured in a presidential election since it began compiling the vote by major subgroups in 1952.

Gender Gap in Voting for President, Final Pre-Election Polls, 1952-2012
Track the 2012 race and compare it to past elections >

Notably, Obama's 12-percentage-point advantage among women is slightly less than the 14-point advantage he had over John McCain in 2008, while Romney improved on McCain's performance among men by eight points. Thus, the narrowing of Obama's winning margin between the two elections, from seven points to two points, can be ascribed mainly to men's shifting more Republican.

Gallup's historical estimates of the gender gap are based on its final pre-election estimate of the major candidate vote for each election, with the results adjusted, if necessary, to correct for any difference between Gallup's pre-election estimate of the vote and the actual election results. In the 2012 election, Gallup's final unallocated estimate of the vote, based on Nov. 1-4 tracking, showed Obama favored by 48% of likely voters and Romney by 49%. Thus, for this analysis, Obama's support among men and women was weighted upward slightly to match his actual 50% support in the election, and Romney's was weighted downward to match his 48% support level.

The gender gap has been evident in presidential voting since at least 1952, though it tended to be somewhat muted in the 1960-1972 elections, averaging just four points. Two of those elections, 1964 and 1972, were landslide victories for incumbent presidents. The other two were highly competitive contests. The actual percentages of the major-party vote each candidate received from men and women can be found in Gallup's election center.

Prior to this year, the largest gender gap in Gallup polling history was 18 points in the 1984 election that saw Republican Ronald Reagan win a second term in office. Majorities of both men and women voted for Reagan in that election, but he won among men by 28 points (64% to 36%) and among women by 10 points (55% to 45%). It is unclear to what extent the presence on the Democratic ticket of Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to be a major party's nominee for vice president, had on the vote of women that year.

Women have supported the Democratic candidate in each of the last six elections. Men favored the Democrat in only two of the last six -- 1992 and 1996 -- and in only four of the 16 elections since 1952.

Overall, since 1952, men and women have differed as to the party's candidate they favored six times, including 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2004, and 2012. In 2008, McCain ran even among men, while women preferred Obama by a large margin.

Implications

The gender gap continues to be a significant factor in U.S. presidential elections, and the preferences of men and women have never differed more than in the 2012 election. There are a number of possible reasons for the increase in the gender gap this year. For example, Romney's business background may have been more appealing to men than to women. Obama's campaign stressed maintaining the social safety net, raising taxes on the wealthy, maintaining abortion rights, and requiring healthcare coverage for contraception -- all in contrast to Romney's more conservative positions on these issues of potential interest to women.

The Democratic Party will likely attempt to secure Obama's election advantage among women by carrying forward the themes that seemed to work in future elections at all levels of government. It remains to be seen whether and how the Republican Party will change course to try to broaden its appeal to women without forfeiting the strong support of men.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/ge...p-history.aspx

The majority of our country is Pro-Choice. This makes Pro-Life candidates disadvantaged from the git-go in a General Election, especially among women. I'm a life-time Republican from a family of Republicans who have been Republican since there were Republicans, and I'm Pro-Choice along with everyone in my family. So we understand why this is a disadvantage.

The sad thing about the 2012 loss is that the Republican Party wasn't honest with itself in its loss assessment and blamed it on not get enough minority votes. No, the problem is you get didn't get enough of the Majority Votes. Women are the Majority in this country, there are not only more of us, more of us vote than men.

Can Trump overcome this gender gap as a Pro-Life Candidate? Perhaps. I hope so in spite of my disagreement with any policies that restrict women's rights to contraception and to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

The left can't really consummate a claim against Trump on Pro-Life because he was Pro-Choice, supports Planned Parenthood health services, and hasn't made a platform issue of his new belief. He also differs with the Republican Platform and supports exemptions to any abortion ban that would include incest, rape and the life of the mother.

I hope and pray that women for this election can set aside the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life issue and focus on who is best for our country and all citizens because of his strong policies on immigration, trade, foreign policy, rebuilding America within, and national security. I don't think with all he wants to do he'll be waging a vendetta against pregnant girls and women, I just can't see him doing that. But if through Congress there are these attempts, then we'll have our political power to defeat the legislation.

Please fellow women, please do not hinge this election on this issue, please put our country and all our fellow citizens first and vote for Donald J Trump for President of the United States.

Then there is this. This alone should make people take notice of the impending Supreme Court appointments...

Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree


January 14, 2013|
By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to lift a 30-year consent decree that bars the Republican National Committee from targeting racial and ethnic minorities in its efforts to end fraudulent voting.

The justices without comment turned down an appeal from RNC lawyers who said the decree has become “antiquated” and is “increasingly used as political weapon” by Democrats during national campaigns.

For their part, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee had argued that recent campaigns show the “consent degree remains necessary today.”

The court’s action is a victory for the DNC, and it comes after an election year in which the two parties regularly exchanged charges over “voter fraud” and “voter intimidation.” But most of the recent battles have been fought on the state level, and it is not clear whether the long-standing consent decree has had much impact.


The case began in 1981 when the RNC created a “national ballot security task force” that, among other things, undertook mailing campaigns targeted at black and Latino neighborhoods in New Jersey. If mailers were returned undelivered, party activists put those voters on a list to be challenged if they showed up to cast a ballot. In addition, the party was alleged to have hired off-duty law enforcement officers to “patrol” minority neighborhoods on election day.

The DNC sued the RNC in federal court, alleging its activities violated the Voting Rights Act and were intended to suppress voting among minorities. Rather than fight the charges in a trial, the RNC agreed to a consent decree promising to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities … directed toward [election] districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations.”

The consent decree has remained in effect, and DNC lawyers say they have gone to court in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Pennsylvania to challenge Republican activities that appear to target mostly black precincts. Both sides agree, however, that the consent decree does not forbid “normal poll watching” by Republican officials.

The RNC has tried repeatedly to have the consent decree lifted, contending it interferes with its efforts to combat voter fraud. But a federal judge in New Jersey in 2009 ruled that it should remain in effect, and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed last year.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the RNC’s lawyers cited past decisions by the justices that ended long-standing court orders involving school desegregation and prison overcrowding. But the justices with no dissent dismissed the appeal in the case of RNC vs. DNC.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook.


http://www.alipac.us/f9/gop-cannot-p...-fraud-272762/

Then there is this,

http://www.alipac.us/f19/why-gop-won...-fraud-311497/

http://www.alipac.us/f9/site-says-ob...omment-288890/

And.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/3-reasons-wh...ma-era-295325/

Originally Posted by Judy

I thought it was because he lost the woman vote by the largest gender gap since the fifties when Gallup started measuring it. Was it from voter fraud or rigged machines somewhere? Other than the gender gap explanation, I honestly don't know why Romney lost.

VOTER FRAUD!

I never knew that. Thanks for letting US know. This adds credence to what Trump is concerned about.