|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 8:45:56 GMT -5
|
|
BT
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by BT on Mar 5, 2008 8:52:20 GMT -5
Yeah, I'd say that's some very fuzzy math.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Mar 5, 2008 9:10:06 GMT -5
He is not short. You are forgetting to add the 70 unpledged delegates he has, which brings his total to 1226.
As for the first part, I can not answer that, but I did see a piece somewhere where a LOT of people felt Ron Paul better served them as a congressman than as a possible Presidential candidate. If I can find the article I will post it. It was in some Texas newspaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 9:16:14 GMT -5
the NY Times has McCain projected pledged at 922. politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/gopdelegates/index.htmladding unpledged would still leave him short. also, it's important to note that delegates can vote for whomever they want at the actual convention. just seems a bit premature to give the guy the nomination with so much time left. you think there would be that much of a disparity in votes though? paul got over 30,000 less votes in his own county for his presidential bid than for his congressional bid. it just doesn't add up. |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 10:29:03 GMT -5
Final Straw Poll Results Fort Worth, TX - September 1, 2007 41.1% Duncan Hunter (534 votes) 20.5% Fred Thompson (266 votes) 16.17% Ron Paul (217 votes) 6.4% Mike Huckabee (83 votes) 6% Rudy Giuliani (78 votes) 4.7% Mitt Romney (61 votes) 2.2% Ray McKinney (28 votes) .77% John Cox (10 votes) .62% John McCain (8 votes) .46% Sam Brownback (6 votes) .46% Tom Tancredo (6 votes) .23% Hugh Cort (3 votes) www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=straw_poll_resultsthe same county, six months later... Hugh Cort 1 0.00% Rudy Giuliani 85 0.46% Mike Huckabee 7,687 42.32% Duncan Hunter 70 0.38% Alan Keyes 126 0.69% John McCain 8,769 48.28% Ron Paul 765 4.21% Mitt Romney 385 2.11% Fred Thompson 131 0.72% Hoa Tran 20 0.11% Uncommitted 123 0.67% enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_135_county219.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Mar 5, 2008 12:28:59 GMT -5
Yeah, actually I do think there would be that much of a difference. You have to realize most of the country does not give Paul a shot anymore, so instead of people feeling like they are throwing their votes away, they are voting in their party for McCain.
As for premature, I do not think so only from a momentum aspect. It is smart to have this wrapped up and build momentum against the democrats while they are still fighting. Plus this will probably make the republicans 5/1 money wise because they can start party fund raising now.
Ron Paul has said from the beginning that he wanted to change things, and honestly (and yes I am agreeing) he did that. Win or Lose he impacted the way the country sees things and may have gotten some people to rethink their positions. So while he may not be president, he did achieve some of his goal.
There are two types of republican voters left right now. Those who know Paul will not get the nod, but still will vote out of principle; and those who know Paul will not get the nod, but will vote within the party.
I just do not think it is fraud or fuzzy math as much as it is political sociology and even psychology of the voters now.
As for the New York times, if you look a the list of states, they do not have delegates entered for Texas or Rhode Island, which would bring him up to the same # that the other outlets are reporting.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 12:32:12 GMT -5
texas is an open primary, so it is possible that republicans would have crossed over and voted in the democratic primary apparently you can't vote for a democratic candidate in the presidential primary and a republican candidate for congressman...so this makes the republican cross-over theory even less plausible (if not eliminating it altogether) as a reason for the discrepancy in ron paul's votes. |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Mar 5, 2008 12:37:43 GMT -5
The other thing you need to look at is you are not actually comparing apples to apples.
For Example: Say you are a McCain person.
When you pull the ticket for Pres, you will pull for McCain.
When you pull for Congress, you have two different choice. So Paul would get the McCain voters for his Congress seat.
They may just like Paul better than the other guy he was running against for Congress.
In math terms:
Assume there are 100 voters total.
There are two offices being voted for: Pres and Congress.
For President you have two candidates: Freddy and Sean
For Congress you have two candidates: Freddy and Mickulz
On the president side the vote goes: 80 (Sean) and 20 (Freddy)
on the congress side thevote goes : 90 (Freddy) and 10 (Mickulz)
It comes down to who do you like better given the choices.
You can apply this theory to anything
Beer: 100 people in the bar
Given the choice of Bud or Miller Lite.
60 (bud) 40 (miller lite)
The bud gets kicked so now you have Miller Lite and Stella
90 (Miller Lite) and 10 (Stella)
It does not mean that people prefer Miller Lite of Bud, it just means given the choice without Bud, people prefer Miller Lite over Stella.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 12:42:19 GMT -5
Yeah, actually I do think there would be that much of a difference. You have to realize most of the country does not give Paul a shot anymore, so instead of people feeling like they are throwing their votes away, they are voting in their party for McCain. from my research on the subject, I would venture to say that the average ron paul supporter is not lukewarm about him, and would vote for him regardless of the circumstance provided that he is on the ballot. you have to understand that the typical ron paul supporter does not fit the mold that you are trying to squeeze them into. |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 12:43:48 GMT -5
They may just like Paul better than the other guy he was running against for Congress. the guy that ran against dr. paul is a mccain neo-con kinda guy. anyone that supports mccain for president would not vote for ron paul for congressman over his opponent. |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Mar 5, 2008 12:44:59 GMT -5
We are not talking about Ron Paul supporters though and that is the problem. We are talking about the people that are NOT Ron Paul supporters, but being given the choice between Ron Paul and the other guy, they chose Ron Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Mar 5, 2008 12:46:22 GMT -5
They may just like Paul better than the other guy he was running against for Congress. the guy that ran against dr. paul is a mccain neo-con kinda guy. anyone that supports mccain for president would not vote for ron paul for congressman over his opponent. See you are ASSUMING that is the case, but it may not be. What about the Huckabee voters in texas? What about the Romney supporters in Texas? |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 12:48:33 GMT -5
forget about supporters...most people vote based on ideology/beliefs/whatever you want to call it. someone that would vote for mccain (candidate A) is ideologically different than someone that would vote for paul (candidate B). so presented with a congressional election with another candidate A or a candidate B...the voter's principles remain unchanged. most likely they are voting for A in either case, or B in either case. they wouldn't vote for A, and then change their mind as they scroll down the ballot and suddenly vote for B.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 12:51:17 GMT -5
See you are ASSUMING that is the case, but it may not be. What about the Huckabee voters in texas? What about the Romney supporters in Texas? I am not assuming anything. I have looked up this Peden guy. He is in the McCain mold. People wouldn't vote for Paul for Congressman if they don't agree with his principles when there is another McCain type guy running against him. |
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 12:54:01 GMT -5
you may want to research the subject a bit more before you engage in this debate. seems that your knee-jerk reaction is to just sweep the possibility of shady dealings under the rug, even though I have provided a decent amount of evidence supporting my position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Mar 5, 2008 12:59:37 GMT -5
You are still not grasping the concept Freddy.
There are 3 people involved: Candidates A, B, and C.
A vs B
and C vs B
You can not sit here and say that Candidate A and C are pretty much the same person, so people would vote for C is they voted for A. The views could very much be different between McCain and the other guy.
If that was the case, then on the democratic side there would be no issues, because everyone that voted for Bill Clinton would be voting for Hillary Clinton, since their ideology is the same.
Try the same theory in reverse once.
Say in Pa, Jesus was running against Arlen Spector for President
Say Arlen Spector was also running against Ted Bundy for a congressional seat.
For President, most everyone would pick Jesus, but there would be some Arlen voters)
For Congress, all the Spector voters PLUS all the Jesus voters will combine againt Ted Bundy.
Also, if you were almost split between the two presidential candidates say 55/45 towards McCain, it would be pretty easy to pick Paul in the congressional seat because your 45% approval of Paul is probably better than what every your approval is for the other guy.
The other fact is the other guy hardly did anything worth mentioning. So maybe most people didnt know who is was, and they know of Paul because of his past and his current bid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Mar 5, 2008 13:01:45 GMT -5
I am just tired of of the Ron Paul people calling foul on EVERY THING.
Maybe he is a damn good congressman that would not be a good president.
It is not a knee jerk reaction. You have not even mentioned the fact that the NY Times didn't count Texas and Rhode Island in their numbers either...
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 13:35:58 GMT -5
I understand your theory, I just disagree with it. I don't think you know enough about the candidates and what the voters are thinking to make your argument compelling enough for me to find it plausible. I think what you are proposing is an oversimplification. you said that texas and rhode island were not counted, and I took your word for it. I looked again...rhode island is counted, but not texas. texas has a state convention at which delegates are determined. this is why they haven't been "counted" yet. www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/TX-R.phtmlit's like this in a lot of states. also, delegates are not bound to vote for a particular candidate. again, this is why I feel that it is too early to award mccain the nomination. that is why cnn has mccain labeled as "the presumptive nominee" and why he is not "officially" the nominee. just counting the delegates of elections yet to be decided, along with huckabee and romney delegates (which are now "free" to vote as they please), there are over 1,000 delegates still available to be had at the convention. the main purpose of this post was to point out these election "irregularities." your answer, in the face of the information I've provided, does not seem plausible enough to explain away my concerns on the matter. there have been many "irregularities" in both elections and election coverage. I, along with other Ron Paul supporters, have simply been pointing them out. given that you don't particularly care about ron paul or this issue, it is understandable that you wouldn't have researched this as much as I have...myself being someone that is very passionate about the matter. you speak from a position of ignorance on this, yet purport that you are speaking from a position of expertise. |
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Mar 5, 2008 13:58:14 GMT -5
I am speaking as someone with a minor in political science.
As for the Rhode Island, yes they did just add it (and his delegate count did go up to 989). It was not added at the time I made the post.
The problem is you are saying that this example is an "irregularity" but if you research past years poll results and information you will see that this is a common trend and happens more than you might think.
You are correct in the fact that there are over 1,000 delegates still available to be had at the convention, but by design that number is less than the 1/2 needed. Even if those 1,000 voted for Paul it would still not be enough (added in with those already counted).
The problem is emotion (as it should in a sense) starts to distort things.
If your post or article said "John election official suspects voter fraud due to faulty machines.." or even an episode like the wonderful Hanging Chads of 2000, I would not even be arguing the point. The problem is the fact that you are calling it a fraud when it is a voter trend. If it turns out that there is fraud, I will come on here and post in huge letters I was wrong, but so far all you have pointed to is data showing that people in Texas like McCain for President over Ron Paul, and that they like Ron Paul for congressman over Chris Peden.
The result from his own district show his highest percentage for President around 15%. That is pretty consistent with the numbers nationally and in other states.
I just still do not see where you can claim fraud or error on this.
The numbers basically say another 32,000 people outside of his own district voted for him as president.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddyv on Mar 5, 2008 14:32:47 GMT -5
fair enough. the subject title of this thread was meant to provoke thought, not to make a declarative statement. hence the question mark.
when I refer to you speaking from a position of ignorance, I am not speaking to your expertise in the field of political science. you don't care about these races/candidates, so you wouldn't dig as deeply as someone that does care about it (i.e. myself). I am also implying that you cannot possibly make the assumptions you are making given that you are not inside the heads of the individual voters, and you do not know what motivates them. you could easily flip that on me, to which I would have to say touche, but I am not claiming to know what they are thinking or trying to explain away questions with answers that I have no way of possibly knowing, let alone confirming. it is merely conjecture on your part, yet you pose it as infallible fact.
instead of explaining away a situation that is certainly questionable by saying "this sort of thing happens all the time," perhaps the better response would be "this happens all the time...why is that?" perhaps our system is not as transparent/honest/reliable as it should be.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. if you knew me personally, outside of the confines of this message board, this would be obvious. I think the other situations you've mentioned (hanging chads, etc.) are only further proof that our election system is a sham. there is no guarantee that any particular person's vote is actually being counted. every vote should have equal weight, and no one should be pulling the strings behind the scenes.
to me, these results defy logic. they may make perfect sense to you, but they do not make any sense to me. perhaps the average voter doesn't care as much about it as I do.
to me...if it looks like a duck...walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...it's probably a duck. it's a shady situation, for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mickulz on Mar 5, 2008 14:37:30 GMT -5
It is possible.
I never put you as the conspiracy type, I just feel that a lot of RP supports cry foul on a lot of things a little too quickly.
My response was based on historical data and trends, that is all. Short of asking every voter exactly why they voted the way they did, we will never know.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayten on Mar 5, 2008 21:56:19 GMT -5
Short of asking every voter exactly why they voted the way they did, we will never know. leave that up to CNN.. they always ask the right people |
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Mar 6, 2008 13:32:15 GMT -5
freddy, mickulz would never admit to any type of voter fraud.........he is either too naive ....... or too much of a scoundrel........you be the judge.........
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Mar 8, 2008 13:46:43 GMT -5
read this anti-conspiracy theory people:
Clinton Comeback: Courtesy of Diebold
Bill Noxid
March 6, 2008
Once again we are supposed to believe that it was the leaked memo, or the red phone ad, or buyer’s remorse or some other such nonsense. In reality however, she won for the same reason George Bush has been president for eight years. She won because this country still uses Diebold and ES&S voting machines that have time and again altered the outcome of our elections. I don’t think I can say it any clearer than that.
It’s unfortunate that the American people still just don’t understand. It’s hard to watch them be so easily swayed by the endless mainstream nonsense while the truth is right in front of them. It’s by design of course, and the perpetrators have had a lot of practice at this.
Granted, this has been an ugly Democratic Primary season. I’ve seen things come out of the Clinton campaign that I would have never expected, and surely I’m disappointed. I would have hoped that the Clinton’s would have had more respect for the positive direction that the majority of the country is determined to take, rather than the pursuit of “winning” by any means. The fact that the Republicans have gleefully done all they can to ensure Hillary continues this behavior should be a clear indication of what side she is benefiting.
However, this is not why she won three of the four March 4th contests. Once again we are supposed to believe that it was the leaked memo, or the red phone ad, or buyer’s remorse or some other such nonsense. In reality however, she won for the same reason George Bush has been president for eight years. She won because this country still uses Diebold and ES&S voting machines that have time and again altered the outcome of our elections. I don’t think I can say it any clearer than that.
The challenge in demonstrating this reality is finding some kind baseline or control factor for comparison. These machines have all but replaced actual vote counting in this country which makes it incredibly difficult to find any measure of truth. In my last writing on Diebold ( which I suggest you read ), the fact that so many hand-counted districts were right next to Accuvote districts made the discrepancies glaringly apparent.
Although we don’t have a comparable arrangement in this case, we do have similar components. We have touch-screen counted votes and hand counted votes, but we also have something entirely new. In fact this new factor is ( as far as I’m concerned ) the definitive evidence.
Let’s start with Rhode Island. Unfortunately, the state is entirely touch-screen voting. No real paper trail, and no chance of arguing with the machine. However I will point this out. If you exclude the imaginary results we’ve been given, this margin in Rhode Island coincides nicely with the margins we have seen consistently over the previous 11 contests. 58% - 40% is an Obama margin we’ve seen repeatedly.
To illustrate that point, let’s look at Vermont. Here we have an almost identical margin ( 59% - 39% ) except this time it is for Obama. The difference in this state - as you might expect - is that Vermont uses hand counted ballots in the majority of it’s municipalities.
The Texas two-step gives a look at both machine count and hand count. The primary in Texas is all machine count and it gives the win to Clinton 51% - 47%. However the caucus results ( hand count ) reflect the opposite and then some ( 56% - 44% Obama ).
But without question, the Ohio results are by far the most interesting. Although this superficially looks like an across the board win, there is a fascinating hidden story. It’s rare that I get to point to champions for democracy and I’m quite pleased to have the opportunity to do so here. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Jane Platten ( director of the Cuyahoga County elections board ) undoubtedly walked through the fires of hell to implement the paper ballot plan and I’m extremely glad that they did. Because of their incredible efforts there is some data about the Ohio elections that can actually be trusted, and I have something legitimate to work with.
The story of this plan is a fascinating one. As you may recall Cuyahoga County in Ohio has been the location of a number of election problems over the years. Just last year, two election workers were convicted of rigging a recount of the 2004 presidential election, and in May 2006, election results were delayed five days while absentee ballots were hand-counted due to a “printing error”.
The plan to abandon touch-screen and switch to verifiable paper ballots has been progressing since Dec. 21, 2007 when Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner broke a 2-2 deadlocked election board vote regarding the change.
In an effort to put an end to the horrific election problems of the past, Director Platten implemented several changes to the way votes are handled. To prevent absentee ballot problems for instance Platten had all of the absentee ballots counted and stored on hard disk prior to election day. To ensure the integrity of those ballots, the disk was stored in a safe, monitored by security cameras, and guarded by a Sheriff’s deputy 24 hours a day until polls closed on the 4th. Contrast this with the embarrassing display of ballot custody in New Hampshire and the empty ballot boxes scattered on the floor.
“There are a lot more controlled environments now in place based on what we’ve learned from past experiences,” said Platten.
What is most interesting is who surfaced in opposition to this new system and their supposed “reasoning” for their objections. I can only imagine how many people this was upsetting to ( because of the totality of established vote control in Ohio ) but the surrogate used to stop this move to a real voting system was the ACLU.
CLEVELAND (AP) Jan 18, 2007 — The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal judge on Monday to block the March 4 presidential primary in Ohio’s biggest county if it switches to a paper ballot system that doesn’t allow voters to correct errors.
In a follow-up to a suit it filed Jan. 17, the ACLU of Ohio asked for a preliminary injunction against any election in Cuyahoga County if the switch is made.
The lawsuit argued that the proposed paper-ballot system would violate voters’ constitutional rights because it doesn’t allow them to correct errors on ballots before they are cast.
“The evidence is overwhelming that when voters do not have access to technology that notifies them of ballot errors, many more ballots are left uncounted,” said Meredith Bell-Platts, a voting-rights attorney with the ACLU.
What an astonishing argument for the ACLU to make. Here we have the American Civil Liberties Union claiming that voters are too stupid to tell if they are filling out the right circle and that the only resolution is a machine to tell them who they voted for. Yet over a concern for the voter’s ability to “correct” a ballot error, they ask a judge to prevent the county from voting at all.
Jennifer Brunner also noted this would rule out the use of absentee ballots period, since those voters wouldn’t have the opportunity to check their ballot before they were counted either.
Thankfully, U.S. District Judge Kathleen O’Malley denied the ACLU’s injunction request and Platten’s plan was allowed to proceed. In the short amount of time that was available before the primary ( and the amount of time wasted by the ACLU ) only two counties actually got the paper ballot systems implemented… Those were Cuyahoga and Franklin counties.
Franklin County was also under assault to prevent the use of paper ballots. Judge Eric Brown ( D ) from Franklin County Common Pleas Court lifted Judge Richard E. Parrott’s ( R ) restraining order against Brunner that prevented her from ordering the use of paper ballots.
So I retell all of this to illustrate a very simple point. Someone seriously did not want a system that actually counted and secured votes to be implemented in Ohio, and they tried very hard to prevent it… Let’s see why they went to so much trouble.
On the day of the primary, only Cuyahoga and Franklin County were actually prepared. The rest of the counties were instructed to also offer paper ballots but there are a number of reports indicating otherwise. During the day however, two other districts had significant machine problems and thus used a portion of paper ballots. Those counties were Montgomery and Delaware. Additionally Hamilton County already used paper ballots that ( previously ) were scanned locally instead of the new centralized system.
As you can see from the map, the only counties where Obama won are also the counties that had secured, centrally counted, paper ballots.
So here we are once again with a situation we’ve seen several times before. Underneath the smokescreen of the kitchen sink strategy we see the real problem. Once again ( when viewing all four contests ), the machine vote goes to Hillary and the paper ballot ( or hand count ) goes to Obama. The fact that Hillary’s actions and reactions have coincided so seamlessly with the Republican, Rovian, Limbaughvian philosophy and tactics, could actually lead one to question if it is coordinated.
I’m not suggesting it is. The people who are in control of our election system probably don’t want Hillary to be president any more than they want Barack to be. It doesn’t bother them one bit however watching the Democratic race degenerate into a hate fest and anything that will slow the vote momentum or make people feel “hopeless” is a good thing to them.
So before anyone questions whether I wear a tin foil chapeau, ask yourself why United Technologies Corporation is so determined to purchase Diebold ( a company currently under investigation by the DOJ and SEC ) before election day. You can bet Charlie Black ( McCain’s Campaign Director and lobbyist for United Technologies ) has a very good reason for this arrangement.
So once again, I beg you to pay attention to the puppet masters and don’t be lead astray by their fake arguments and explanations. Instead of playing into Republican hands and wasting energy on infighting, the Democratic Party needs to unite and ensure that these machines don’t steal another election from under the American nose. The world desperately needs us to wake up and take this country from rulers that have oppressed and lied to us all.
|
|
|
|
Post by seanx on Mar 8, 2008 13:57:12 GMT -5
.....funny thing is in the above article, the author isn't even realizing that Clinton and Obama are major players in CFR and Bilderberg.................so they are all one in the same, EXCEPT that they are worried Obama will get us out of Iraq and could pull a JFK and get a conscience and be uncontrollable.............Clinton and McCain are controllable dictators........
|
|
