Jump to content

william.scherk

Rigging the 2016 Presidential Election

Recommended Posts

On 8/2/2016 at 10:41 AM, william.scherk said:

Stone encouraged Trump to start priming the pump on the issue.

"I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly," Stone said. "He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: 'I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud. If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.'"

Yah. It is all going to plan ...

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Voter Fraud Hotline

[...] I hope you won't need this, but if you do, I hope you will use it.

The two lovely Trump ladies have published a list of phone numbers. I checked a random sample of the numbers, and not every one is a direct Fraud hotline. A slight majority of them turned out to be the main switchboard number for a state elections authority.  Below is the full list, for the convenience of OLers who believe they have witnessed fraud (or intimidation).

I have bolded the 'swing-states' on the list, as these are the likeliest to be 'rigged' -- since they can 'swing' the election. I have also added, where appropriate, further information for the reporter. For example, the phone number goes directly to Florida Elections Fraud hotline, and the accompanying link tells you what you need to know to make an effective, actionable complaint. Not every state authority offers such clear and direct reporting and followup.

California 916 657-2166
Colorado 303-894-2200
Connecticut 860-509-6100
Delaware 302-739-4277
Florida 877-868-3737 (http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/contacts/elections-fraud-complaint/ ) + form (PDF)
Georgia 877-725-9797 (http://sos.ga.gov/cgi-bin/EMailStopVoterFraud.asp )
Hawaii 808-453-8683
Idaho 208-334-2852
Illinois 217-782-4141
Indiana 317-232-6531
Iowa 888-767-8683 (https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterhotline/ )
Kansas 785-296-4561
Kentucky 502-564-3490
Louisiana 225-922-0900
Maine 207-624-7736
Maryland 410-269-2840
Massachusetts 617-727-7030
Michigan 888-767-6424
Minnesota 877-600-8683
Mississippi 601-576-2550
Missouri 573-751-2301
Montana 406-444-3976
Nebraska 402-471-2555
Nevada 775-684-5705 (http://nvsos.gov/sos/sos-information/file-a-complaint )
New Hampshire 603-271-3242
New Jersey 609-292-3760
New Mexico 505-827-3600
New York 518-473-5086
North Carolina 919-733-7173 (https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/numbermemo/2016/SBE_Monitor_Observer_Runner_Guide.pdf)
North Dakota 701-328-4146
Ohio 614-466-2585 [no formal complaint process available]
Oklahoma 405-521-6457
Oregon 503-986-1518
Pennsylvania 717-787-5280 (https://www.pavoterservices.state.pa.us/Pages/ReportElectionComplaints.aspx)
Rhode Island 401-222-2345
South Carolina 803-734-9060
South Dakota 605-773-3537
Tennessee 615-741-7956
Texas 512-463-5650
Utah 801-538-1041
Vermont 800-439-8683
Virginia 804-864-8901 (http://www.elections.virginia.gov/voter-complaints/index.html)
Washington 360-902-4151
Washington DC 202-727-2525
West Virginia 304-558-6000
Wisconsin 608-261-2028
Wyoming 307-777-5860

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Y

The only poll that matters is the vote...

We know from actual experience that polls  are not always  correct.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The only poll that matters is the vote...

We know from actual experience that polls  are not always  correct.

Here comes Bob again to instruct us that a poll is not an election.

In case anyone didn't know this, of course.

He's trying to be helpful.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here comes Bob again to instruct us that a poll is not an election.

In case anyone didn't know this, of course.

He's trying to be helpful.

:)

Michael

Apparently some of the folks here need reminding....

Polls are ka  ka. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see from new leaks that the Trump anti . . . . er . . . full figured women, Miss Piggy offensive, was months in the making by the Clinton propaganda machine.

Per Diem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:
5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Y

T

This is sixth floor, Ladies Wear.  You want the thirteenth floor, Nate Silver, Bayesian probabilities, and pet shop.

Ding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How community organizing (rigging elections) works.

 

" "When we lie for personal gain, our amygdala produces a negative feeling that limits the extent to which we are prepared to lie," explains senior author Dr Tali Sharot (UCL Experimental Psychology). "However, this response fades as we continue to lie, and the more it falls the bigger our lies become. This may lead to a 'slippery slope' where small acts of dishonesty escalate into more significant lies." "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soros machines in action in early voting in Texas. Paul Joseph Watson from Infowars:

REPORT: VOTES SWITCHED FROM TRUMP TO HILLARY IN TEXAS

From the article:

Quote

... in Amarillo, a woman was shocked to see her ballot flip from Republican to Democrat.
“Gary and I went to early vote today,” wrote Lisa Houlette on Facebook. “I voted a straight Republican ticket and as I scrolled to submit my ballot I noticed that the Republican straight ticket was highlighted, however, the Clinton/Kaine box was also highlighted!”

“I tried to go back and change and could not get it to work. I asked for help from one of the workers and she couldn’t get it to go back either. It took a second election person to get the machine to where I could correct the vote to a straight ticket,” she added.

There are other cases mentioned in the article.

Keeping people vigilant is the reason to keep the drums pounding about rigged elections.

The riggers are totally shameless and will rig when they can catch the unaware.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lou Dobbs on Fox Business calls what we are seeing on the Democrat side, “The Clinton Cartel,” and there has never been an organization or a person running for the Presidency, that is more corrupt.

To me the money trail / payoff to the FBI investigation into the Clinton email scandal, disregard for security, and the meeting on the jet on the tarmac are two indictable instances in my estimation, and one instance of at least incredibly bad judgment.

From the Wall Street Journal: The Trump campaign is pouncing on news that Clinton friend Terry McAuliffe donated money to an FBI investigator’s wife when she ran for office. Last night’s revelation that close Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe authorized $675,000 to the wife of a top official at the FBI, who conveniently was promoted to deputy director, and helped oversee the investigation into Clinton’s secret server is deeply disturbing and calls into question the entire investigation,” Trump senior communications adviser Jason Miller said in a statement. end quote

Attorney General Loretta Lynch met secretly with the husband of Hillary Clinton as Ms. Clinton was being investigated and that should be considered a felony.

Dereliction of duty. Graft. Bribery. Some might say treason. If Trump is not elected it will all be buried and the people who should and may pursue justice will be vilified, have their life’s ruined, and may even be murdered so that it looks like natural causes or a robbery.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following smear against George Soros is totally unacceptable.

(Unless it was his own people who did it to make the alt-right look like rank amateurs. :) )

Some idiot doctored a video by Soros to make it seem like he is openly flaunting his influence on the election. They made it seem like he said the exact opposite of what he really said. Snopes gives the whole story and compares the doctored video against the original one:

Rigged Confession
An altered video twists the words of billionaire Democrat George Soros to create the impression he made a conspiratorial prediction about the 2016 presidential election.

Whoever is doing this shit needs to stop it and stop it right now.

Soros doesn't need fake conspiracies spread about him to make him look bad. He is plenty bad on his own.

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Soros doesn't need fake conspiracies spread about him to make him look bad. He is plenty bad on his own.

I first ran into the Soros Scandals here on OL, in a thread busy with Glenn Beck, if I remember correctly. I can see from my present perspective why Soros gets check marks on a lot of items on the Bad Criteria list. 

It isn't the first time Soros is used as a synonym to Satan. 

Here I think the danger is in over-prosecuting a case. As with pressing the "Soros looted Jewish homes as a Nazi youth" too strongly and despite contradictory evidence, to staple Evul to his forehead, to account him as a Mr Thompson of the left, all this obscures what it is his does with his money and the tentacles of his "Open Society" initiatives. It doesn't press the right charges and fails to be verified. 

One thing I respect about Soros is his biography. He grew up in a 'closed society' and it made a mark on the man. Behind his obvious evul is a desire to remake societies, to 'open' them.  Knowing of the arc of his emotional-intellectual life, his deeply-rooted Westernism, it lends some plausibility to his 'plot' as an agency for human freedom and flourishing. I mean, it mollifies the left to some degree, that he is able to semantically-link "progressivism" to  the proto-American ideals of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to associate. There isn't the same stench and stain attached to his name, fame and agenda on the left (save the leftmost).

So, when I see stuff that makes Soros as some kind of Stalin leading the international effort to Globalize, I say Yah, but. I think of Ukraine, which he and his tentacles paid much attention to, in the last decade. The Soros "tech" had been honed in consortium with other actors (eg, CIA) in the so-called "colour revolutions. The influence of so many concerted forces led to the departure of the staggeringly corrupt Viktor Yanukovich (he of the stupendously extravagant secret residence, zoo, golf course, yacht harbour, etc).

Similarly, it was a consortium of 'open society' adherents who ushered in the swap-out of Soviet ideals for Western ideals and institutions.

On these very narrow grounds, I think an Objectivish person can understand the dangers of over-larding the goose

Quote
About 329,000 results (0.50 seconds) 
Search Results

.d5aa7a5f2dd03a6967f56c5f087b334e.jpg

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Rush Limbaugh explained quite some time ago, around this time the polls will start coming into line to reflect reality, but they still won't be accurate until about 5 days before the election.

The reason? According to Rush, public polls exist to mold public opinion and/or artificially manufacture news (they are an excellent hook for pundits to gather and talk).

But polling companies need a decent reputation to stay in business after elections, so they peg their reputations to the more accurate polls starting five days out and make up all kinds of crap to justify being wildly off before.

Here's a small indication of this pattern happening:

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As Rush Limbaugh explained quite some time ago, around this time the polls will start coming into line to reflect reality, but they still won't be accurate until about 5 days before the election.

I looked back in the Rush archives. This is his most recent 'explanation,' from two weeks ago

Quote

"Why, we don't do anything funny with our polls.  We just go out there, we try to find the best sample we can, and try to give you the most accurate presentation we can, and that's it." But they use polls to make and shape public opinion and they will do so until a week before the election.  Pay attention to the polls in the last five days.  That's where the pollsters will want to actually have it right.  And I'm just telling you, I don't want you to be surprised if we get down to 10 days and five days and these polls show a sudden surge by Trump that they can't figure out, they'll say.

[...]

And I want to take her occasion of making that comment to remind you again that all of these polls are being used to suppress support for Trump.  They are being used to encourage people to abandon Trump.  They're being used to encourage Trump to abandon his campaign.  Their purpose is to dispirit and depress everyone and convince as many people as possible that it's over, that Trump is a buffoon and has no chance whatsoever, all of it's a waste of time, they might as well concede now and you might as well concede now.  That's the purpose of it. 

The pollsters, about five to seven days out, is when they issue their last poll or the last two polls before the election. Those are the ones you really look at, because they are the polls their reputations will be staked to, and every polling unit at the end of a campaign wants to be trusted and reliable, they want to be shown to be right. 

Strangely, or not so strangely, Rush was saying the same thing four years ago ... and we know how that worked out.

Then again, a guy can say just about anything to cover his ass ...  not that there's anything wrong with that. Here's Rush back in August. Is he trying to have it both ways?  I don't listen to him, so I may have missed some other declamations of wisdom.

Quote

And I was telling everybody in 2012 not to believe the polls, because I didn't.  I thought they were jigged.  I thought they were jigged up, rigged up, whatever, and they weren't.  They just didn't care about the 2010 turnout.  It wasn't a factor to them, the polling units.  They only compare presidential years to presidential years.  And so they were assuming a much different turnout for the presidential race in 2012. 

[...]

It just seems that every presidential election year repeats itself.  The polls come out, and it shows our guy losing handily, either by five, it's outside the margin of error, five, seven, 10, in this case, 15, and then the pattern is that our side always claims anecdotal evidence to show the polls are wrong. 

In the case of Romney, we were looking at the crowds that showed up in the last week for his rallies, and they were over the top.  They rivaled Trump rallies.  They rivaled Trump crowds in terms of size.  It didn't matter.  The rallies had nothing in common with the polling data.  The pattern is repeating here with Trump.  Not only is crowd size and crowd energy being cited, and it's being compared to the lack of energy and lack of size of Hillary's crowds, there's a new metric that's now been introduced, and that's social media. 

I received this analysis in the email today.  Some people have gone out there and tabulated how much social media, and they've tabulated by who has followers and likes and who does the most tweeting and Facebook posting and all that, and this analysis shows that Trump is just clocking her, three to one social media presence.  Three to one social media positives, that Trump owns social media.  And they're saying, "The polling data is not catching that. The polling data is not showing that." [...]

I guess what I'm saying is it's a risk here to just throw the polls out and say they don't matter, because you end up creating a false reality for yourself that isn't true.  

Context for "The Pollsters" or the 'corporate pollsters' or what have you -- each separately calculating how to carry out the auto-suggestion, rigging the output with thumbs on the scales. Think of how many pollsters there are active this round. See how many are listed, for example, in the 538 tables of pollsters. Dig in a little bit to the swings/variance in the last month at Real Clear Politics.**  

The thumb-on-scale is varied, if there is thumb on scale. For example, the most Trump-friendly pollsters this round just lately, the outfits at LA Times and the outfit at IBT and the outfit at Rasmussen.  They are pollsters, they may fit on the shelf labeled 'corporate polsters,' and they may be biased towards the GOP. So, how will they fit the final two weeks into the framework of bias?  Have they been right all along, and will this show on election night?

How do we rate the various houses on the day after? (and on which day ahead do we start taking in 'real' numbers from them?)

Let a hundred hypotheses bloom.  

TrumpPanic-B.jpg

__________________

** -- see also the hexplainer at 538 (unless you are a H8ter), "State of the Polls 2016." I helps you get a grasp of the full arc of polling this election, including the primaries, and gives you a leg up on interpreting the rolling RCP polling average by understanding the variation.  Cliff's Notes version: look to variance between polls taken at the same time on the same race -- and hold against their track records of prediction. Make up your own mind which individual houses might be 'trusted,' and which are bent.

 

Edited by william.scherk
You can never have too much Rush Limbaugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Strangely, or not so strangely, Rush was saying the same thing four years ago ... and we know how that worked out.

William,

Are you insinuating Rush made a prediction back then?

I would check that premise. He doesn't make election predictions on principle.

:)

btw - Look at the polls back then and you will see they behaved exactly like the way Rush said.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Strangely, or not so strangely, Rush was saying the same thing four years ago ... and we know how that worked out.

Then again, a guy can say just about anything to cover his ass ...  not that there's anything wrong with that. Here's Rush back in August. Is he trying to have it both ways?  I don't listen to him, so I may have missed some other declamations of wisdom.

Quote

And I was telling everybody in 2012 not to believe the polls, because I didn't.  I thought they were jigged.  I thought they were jigged up, rigged up, whatever, and they weren't.

Are you insinuating Rush made a prediction back then?

No, but that shouldn't matter.

He is making a prediction right now, and so are some other folks who follow the Rigged Polls Narrative. The prediction is that the 'pollsters' will take their 'thumbs' off their products in the final week of the election campaign. The prediction is that either seven days out or five days out the real goods on public opinion (ie, what's really happenning in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, etc) will be made public.

Since Rush believes that the 'real' state of the race will be unskewed or unjiggered or de-biased on or about November 3, and if the jiggered sprawl of malarkey shows a Clinton ahead, then it stands to reason that Rush believes the 'real' polls will show Trump ahead, and that five days later the results will be in Trump's favour. 

I should say that Rush is not the only person of note predicting the 'swing back to reality' in public polling.

I myself do not believe that the polls are any more awful and biased and cooked and jiggered than in 2012.  Rush warned against repeating the wishful thinking of 2012. Rush sort of warned about not getting fooled again, and yet ... the polls are fooling with everybody still.

Quote

Look at the polls back then and you will see they behaved exactly like the way Rush said.

No.

I mean, if you want to provide a rough date for the 'polls back then' and define the 'exact behaviour'  as Rush said, which "Rush said" does this mean? I will happily research this with you if I get some pointers or dated quotes or something. 

Back in 2012 he bought the 'polls are wrong' narrative, and expected a Romney victory.  Right?

Edited by william.scherk
grrrammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

He is making a prediction right now...

William,

The hell he is.

He always makes a point of saying he doesn't.

I read the transcripts of his shows. You, apparently, don't.

Here is what he does say. He says that since almost all the mainstream press and pundits, and most of the politicians, including many famous Republicans, keep declaring over and over that the election is over and Hillary Clinton is the next president, why aren't they happy? Why aren't they acting smug? Why aren't they relaxed and having a good time?

Why are they so hysterical?

You may call any inference from that you want a prediction, but it isn't. It's merely an observation that the undisputed, undeniable, rock-solid winners are not acting like winners.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Back in 2012 he bought the 'polls are wrong' narrative, and expected a Romney victory.  Right?

William,

I will have to look, but I don't think Rush expected anything but a tight race. I know he hoped Romney would win because he can't stand Obama, but I don't think he called it. He doesn't do that.

Karl Rove, on the other hand, made an ass out of himself on national TV by still calling it for Romney after the resuts were in...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The hell he is.

I quote him predicting what will happen shortly with Da Polls.  He say Da Polls are presently jiggered for Clinton, but they will 'true themselves' five or so days out. That is what I am talking about.

About 2012, I quoted, " And I was telling everybody in 2012 not to believe the polls, because I didn't.  I thought they were jigged.  I thought they were jigged up, rigged up, whatever, and they weren't." 

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't think Rush expected anything but a tight race. [2012]

Who cares? It was a surprise to him that the polls were 'right' and that Romney lost.

What is more interesting to me are your opinions and the prediction you share or attribute to Rush: the pollsters will remove the thumbs and polling will begin to be 'right' (ie, favouring Trump as a winner, state by state). Starting in about seven days. 

Anyhow, the race is rigged or not, rigged where it counts, in the knife-edge states where a criminal conspiracy to toss the election would coalesce. What the hell is the plan to deal with this expected wave of criminality? The bizarre corps being assembled by Roger Stone are not going to do anything but be stupid. There is zilch direction from either the GOP or the Trump campaign on just what a fearful voter can do to help avert a massive, interstate fraud. It shouldn't be so easy for The Fraudster Class to bring it off.

But, okay, I can set aside the polls as "all polls are wrong." The most use they were to me was when me and Adam were scoring out the GOP Primaries. We each relied on 'Da Polls' to guesstimate just when Mr Trump would get the magic number. I long held that if Mr Trump could stay at or above 33%, then he was assured the nomination. I called it early. I was right. Insert dancing crow, crowing.

So, even if Rush's prediction is wrong, I can easily set aside the entire preceding proceedings. And remark upon polls in a week's time only. Fair enough?

So, polls are shit until the last days, even William McGotcha agrees. Now what?

Back to 'rigging.' I want to add a few more remarks about the swing states. The only problem is that without cognitions about Da Polls, I am designating swingers without much data.  But say, the list includes Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, and adds Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina. I want to dig down finally into the vulnerabilities in the places where rigging would make a difference. Any other states wanting analysis, O Olers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Mr Gateway Pundit does not mind me republishing his entire post. The forensic examiner in me got very excited.  Oh wait, don't put the whole thing up, just the evidence, ma'am.

Quote

IT’S RIGGED=> Voters Report Trump-Pence Choice is MISSING From their Ballot!

IT’S RIGGED.

This was emailed to me today.
I asked for photos and then got this in the email—
The ballots do not have Trump-Pence listed!
ballot-clinton-no-trump

No wonder they’re so cocky!

From a Trump supporter:
I am a single, Republican mother of two younger kids in small town Illinois. Within my friends, I keep seeing and hearing of all these examples of voter fraud going on right now with Trump supporters.

A friend of mine in South Carolina went in to fill out their ballot, only to find there were no Republican nominees on the ballot showing Democrat, Pacific Green/Progressive, Libertarian (however there were 2 Democrat boxes for Clinton/Kaine).

vote-ballot-hillary-kaine

 

So, tie up my hands behind me and I can still nose my way to Tin-Eye and get a link to a story that includes these images, before the Gate of way punditry opened his email. Verily.

Quote

 

3. Oregon’s ballot did not omit Donald Trump. An image of what appeared to be a Donald Trump-less ballot was tweeted Friday by a self-admitted hoaxer, who later told a local TV station that his friend had edited the photo. Per Portland’s KGW, John Lussier initially wanted to see how the conservative Twittersphere would react. When his tweet was taken seriously and RTed hundreds of times, Lussier deleted it.

Alex Jones's punditry is spoiled for me already. Do I have to give up Jim Hoff and crew as a credible source? Oh noes, as they say.

The captain is sending me up the riggings. I may not be back in a while. If you hear a mighty kersplash, that is me falling off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Alex Jones's punditry is spoiled for me already. Do I have to give up Jim Hoff and crew as a credible source?

William,

Was that Alex Jones? I'm not saying he didn't publish this, but I just now skimmed through Infowars and didn't see it.

As to Jim Hoff (Gateway Pundit), I've seen him spread other non-credible things. I've started seeing him as a propagandist, not a serious source. And I think it is wrong for the pro-Trump people to push hoaxes as truth as a response to the enormous amount of lies published by the mainstream press. (Yes, I believe they are all doing it on purpose.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×