Voter fraud is so easy

[Monkeyleg]

We're obviously going to see massive voter fraud in this election. And it's amazing how easy it is to do.

Here in Wisconsin, as in many states, there's no ID requirement to vote. If you're on the list of registered voters, you just give your name and address. If you're not already registered, you can just show a utility bill as identification. While 85% of people in Wisconsin favor photo ID's, the Democrats have blocked the legislation.

Now, if you're a group like ACORN, you have volunteers working as poll-watchers. I've done this in past elections, where I had a list of registered Republicans, and I checked off names on the list after each one showed up. If a registered Republican on the list hadn't voted by 7pm, I'd call him or her and ask to get out and vote.

What groups like ACORN can do is, after 7pm, take a copy of the list of all of the registered voters, which shows which ones who haven't voted. The group can then call anybody and tell them to go to polling place X and give the poll workers the name of someone on the list who hasn't voted. No ID required, right?

Also, if tons of people show up before the polls close, the municipality has a choice: keep the polls open longer, or face a lawsuit.

The beauty of the scam is that the voter lists won't be reviewed until after the election, sometimes months after. If there was fraud, it will be too late.

There are other methods, but this is the easiest, as it doesn't need to involve disinterested persons. ACORN volunteers can go to the polls and say they're Joe Schmoe.

I wonder how many millions of fraudulent votes Obama is going to get this year?

[Standing Wolf]

I wonder how many millions of fraudulent votes Obama is going to get this year?

As many as it takes.

[ronnyreagan]

I wonder how many millions of fraudulent votes Obama is going to get this year?

I wonder how many millions of fraudulent votes McCain is going to get this year. There's nothing about the methods you cited that prevent Republicans from doing the exact same thing, and if you're going to claim honor and integrity keeps them from cheating I might die laughing. I know every right wing radio host is ranting about ACORN, but I'm not convinced this election is being "stolen" at all. It looks to me like they see a loss coming and want to try to invalidate it any way possible. It seems like a lot of huffing and puffing without a lot of substance. I'm not saying we should ignore voter fraud or even registration irregularities, but McCain is losing this one with or without ACORNs shenanigans. Are we going to claim next that ACORN is responsible for Obama's ~6 point lead in current polling?

[De Selby]

I wonder how many millions of fraudulent votes McCain is going to get this year. There's nothing about the methods you cited that prevent Republicans from doing the exact same thing, and if you're going to claim honor and integrity keeps them from cheating I might die laughing. I know every right wing radio host is ranting about ACORN, but I'm not convinced this election is being "stolen" at all. It looks to me like they see a loss coming and want to try to invalidate it any way possible. It seems like a lot of huffing and puffing without a lot of substance. I'm not saying we should ignore voter fraud or even registration irregularities, but McCain is losing this one with or without ACORNs shenanigans. Are we going to claim next that ACORN is responsible for Obama's ~6 point lead in current polling?

I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

It will be worse than the Democrats in the wake of 2000. 

[Monkeyleg]

Ronnyreagan, SS, I'm not saying that it's not possible for Republicans to engage in voter fraud. It certainly is. But history has shown that it's Democrats who've engaged in such practices.

Besides, when stories about ACORN make the news, the MSM make it sound like there's just a few rogue employees out there gathering the names of a few dead people. If there were a concerted effort on the part of Republicans to engage in voter fraud, the media would be all over the story.

And, if you don't believe in media bias, perhaps you could explain why Joe Biden gets a pass on ridiculous statements such as saying that FDR was on TV in 1929 reassuring the public about the stock market crash, but Sarah Palin gets skewered for almost anything she says.

[De Selby]

Monkeyleg,

The reason Biden gets away with it is probably that his gaffes are mainly factual and to do with a lack of tact.  Also, his A to B reasoning within the same block of speech is fairly decent, even if his conclusions and premises are totally wrong.

Sarah Palin is the inverse-she constantly mangles the english language ("I contribute that to...") and seems totally unable to even make up an answer to the question, and so she gives this mangled answer "contributing" global warming "to mankind but not to mankind."

Mangling oral speech is one of the more telltale signs, not of a lack of intelligence, but of either complete ignorance or of insincerity, and it's why Palin has been hammered so hard in the media.

There are plenty of media to support conservatives, as well-for all the bias, Fox News and Drudge get numbers that are just as good as any of the other media out there.  Bias simply does not cut it to explain the current polling situation.

[Monkeyleg]

...his gaffes are mainly factual...

God forbid the media should ever call a candidate on his misrepresentation of facts.

Sarah Palin has her own style of speaking, which includes mangling the English language sometimes. GW does the same thing. Neither is an idiot, or at least as gaffe-prone as Biden.

Bias simply does not cut it to explain the current polling situation.

Please, shootinstudent. That statement is demonstrably false, and one only needs to read the analyses of news coverage this year to prove the bias. The media was in the tank for Obama during the primaries, and hasn't let up since. It's free advertising, pure and simple.

Combine that with Obama's 4:1 money advantage, and you have a situation where Americans hear praise for Obama and criticism of McCain at a level never before seen in American politics. The fact that McCain is still within five points is astounding considering that he's being outspent 4:1. To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a presidential election with such a monetary disparity.

I'll take the above and turn your statement around on you. With the incredible amount of money that Obama has been spending, and the media lavishing praise upon him for nearly a year, the current polling situation would indicate that Obama's support is weak. He should be polling near 60% right now.

[De Selby]

Monkeyleg,

The problem with taking "the media" generally is that your measure doesn't really take into account that, for all the circulation that pro-liberal pieces get, the conservative biased media are just as large (if not larger.)

Take a look at the yearly ratings for Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Fox News programs, for example, compared to their sometimes liberal counterparts at CNN and MSNBC (although both of those networks do carry conservatives.) 

It does not make sense to blame this on media bias when anti-Obama media consistently tops the charts, and when the Drudge Report is putting Slate to shame on website visits.

Obama has the money to spend, and the media praise is reflected in the polls, because people are unhappy with the reality of America, not because of media bias.  There are people who have seen O'Reilly interview Obama who still gave money to Obama, for sure.  And of course, this makes sense: people's pensions are going up in smoke, so it's natural that they will be irate at the party that's had the reigns of government the most.

[Intune]

SS-

“The reason Biden gets away with it is probably that his gaffes are mainly factual and to do with a lack of tact.”

 

Bull crap.

Here's a few "mainly fatual" Bidinisms-
Unbelievably, he said the United States and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, when, in fact, no such thing ever happened.

He also made it clear to viewers during the debate that he had absolutely no idea what the Constitution says about the office he seeks. In stern tones, he informed Mrs. Palin that the vice president can preside over the Senate only in case of a tie vote, and that this is outlined in the Article One, which according to him concerns itself with the executive branch of government.

Nope. Article One is about the legislative branch, and what a part of it says is this: "The vice president of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed," he said in an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News.

 Mr. Biden said when running for president three decades ago that he graduated in the top of half of his law-school class. He graduated 76 out of 85.

In the debate, he aimed to show his connection with everyday folks by making it sound as if he sometimes hangs out at Katie's restaurant in Wilmington, Del., only it turns out the place has been closed for 20 years.

Are any of the above Bidinisms “mainly” factual, SS?  Is ANY of it factual whatsoever?  Hmm…



SS-

“Also, his A to B reasoning within the same block of speech is fairly decent, even if his conclusions and premises are totally wrong.”

You write as if that’s a GOOD thing.  Scary.



SS-

“…compared to their sometimes liberal counterparts at CNN and MSNBC…” 

“Sometimes?”  O.K. Champ, I get it.  85%-95% is  “sometimes” and 10% or less is “mainly.”

I could potentially concede that you have valid points had you switched the two but you failed to do so and that is very telling.  That failure also destroys any validity or credibility which may have been found in your statements.

 Which flavor do you prefer?  Grape or cherry?   

[charby]

Take a look at the yearly ratings for Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Fox News programs, for example, compared to their sometimes liberal counterparts at CNN and MSNBC (although both of those networks do carry conservatives.) 

I watch Fox news a lot and in the last week or so I watched it to see if they really were trying to beat up on Obama and praise McCain. To be honest I didn't see it. I did see bad and good about both candidates, mistakes and positives pointed out about both candidates and running mates. That I do not see on the other new networks.

I think a lot of people who criticize Fox News don't even watch it a few of the popular news shows on that channel. They just re-spew the same message that they read/hear about from fellow Democrats and Democrat leaning websites.

[grumpyguido]

Sorry if this has been brought up earlier. I just can not figure out why any person attempting to vote does not have to show proof of who they are. I don't see how this would deter any eligible voter from casting their ballot.

[Monkeyleg]

Take a look at the yearly ratings for Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Fox News programs, for example, compared to their sometimes liberal counterparts at CNN and MSNBC (although both of those networks do carry conservatives.)

OK, let's look at some real numbers, not just what you think the numbers are.

Broadcast networks for October 16th:

ABC 10.42 million viewers
NBC 7.81 million viewers
CBS 14.59 million viewers
Fox 3.54 million viewers

Average daily circulation:
USA Today (liberal) 2.28 million
Wall Street Journal (conservative) 2.07 million
New York Times (liberal) 1.08 million
Washington Post (liberal) 673,180
Washington Times (conservative) 93,775
Los Angeles Time (liberal) 815,723

Now that's what I call "balanced." :(

Obama has the money to spend, and the media praise is reflected in the polls, because people are unhappy with the reality of America, not because of media bias.  There are people who have seen O'Reilly interview Obama who still gave money to Obama, for sure.  And of course, this makes sense: people's pensions are going up in smoke, so it's natural that they will be irate at the party that's had the reigns of government the most.

You have it bass ackwards. Obama is doing well in the polls because of the money he has to spend, and because of the media bias. Stories giving Obama positive coverage outnumber positive stories about  McCain by a margin of 65 to 36. (Source, Center for Media and Public Affairs).

With a 4:1 money advantage, Obama can attack McCain as well as praise himself. If McCain spends money on an ad to refute an Obama attack, that's money that can't be used for a positive McCain ad.

Obama knew this right from the beginning. He told his supporters that he would accept public financing, but flipped once he had Hillary out of the way. He knew that the press wouldn't call him on it, and that his supporters wouldn't object to that flip-flop. He also knew that McCain, co-author of the campaign finance law, would have to use public funding or be pilloried by the press.

If you argue that the ads have no effect on Obama's support, then you're arguing that advertising has no effect on the products people buy, which would be ridiculous.

As an aside, I recently saw a poll (I wish I could remember where) that asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with positions on a number of issues. The poll did not mention the candidates. More people agreed with McCain's positions than with Obama's.

Another aside: after this election, no candidate will ever opt to use public financing if possible. Obama has done more damage to campaign funding than Richard Nixon. Of course, Obama has promised to address the problems of his type of campaign financing if he becomes president.  :rolleyes:

By the way, the proper word would be "reins" and not "reigns" in the context in which you're using it. (Mangling oral speech grammar is one of the more telltale signs, not of a lack of intelligence, but of either complete ignorance or of insincerity...).

[De Selby]

Monkeyleg,

The problem is that Obama had to get that money to spend on media coverage in the first place-and he was competing with the Clintons for that money early on.  He still got it in the first place, even when he was not close to the favorite for this election.  So no, I don't think you can chalk his fundraising up to media bias.

As for numbers, here's a website I found with the weekly Nielsen ratings:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-news/cable-news

Not sure where yours came from, but as you can see, for News ratings, O'Reilly consistently outdoes any of his competitors, and Fox News is number one in ratings day after day. 

I realize that no political movement wants to accept that it is losing, and I saw the same thing in 2000 and 2004 with democrats-the big corporate media was covering up all of Bush's theft, voter fraud was being used to disenfranchise all the poor, and the Supreme Court stole the election for Bush.  Now I'm seeing a repeat from Republicans and conservatives.  It seems we all do politics the same way, even if our policies are different.

Thanks, btw, for catching that spelling error-it would be a grammar error if you "contributed" [attributed] my use of the wrong spelling to not knowing that there are two different words involved. 

[MicroBalrog]

God damn it. Can someone put me into a time machine to early 2007?

[Monkeyleg]

The problem is that Obama had to get that money to spend on media coverage in the first place-and he was competing with the Clintons for that money early on.  He still go it in the first place, even when he was not even close to the favorite for this election.  So no, I don't think you can chalk his fundraising up to media bias.

Do you not understand what happened? Obama said during the primaries that he would take public financing if he became the nominee. If he had said otherwise, Hillary and every Republican challenger would have been all over him. He didn't need to raise these huge sums early on, and was not raising these huge sums early on.

It was only after he became the nominee that he went back on his word.

I showed you numbers for the networks, and you showed me numbers for O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly has one show five nights a week. The networks have multiple newscasts and political commentary seven days a week. I gave you numbers on newspaper circulation, as well as percentages of stories favorable to Obama and McCain, and you're arguing...what? That Obama's slim but consistent lead is because of his superior policy stances? (Whatever those actually are).

I realize that no political movement wants to accept that it is losing, and I saw the same thing in 2000 and 2004 with democrats-the big corporate media was covering up all of Bush's theft, voter fraud was being used to disenfranchise all the poor, and the Supreme Court stole the election for Bush.  Now I'm seeing a repeat from Republicans and conservatives.  It seems we all do politics the same way, even if our policies are different.

Man, you are really out there, way out on the fringe. I didn't realize just how far until this thread.

[De Selby]

Monkeyleg,

Just to be clear, I don't believe those things you highlighted-I was summarizing what the liberals were saying back then to try and explain away their inability to win an election.  Now conservatives are doing the same, except it's ACORN, the liberal media, and the university elite that are the accused.

I showed you numbers for the networks, too, btw-they're right there.  Nielsen rates Fox News as number one every night I can find posted.

[Monkeyleg]

Just to be clear, I don't believe those things you highlighted-I was summarizing what the liberals were saying back then to try and explain away their inability to win an election.  Now conservatives are doing the same, except it's ACORN, the liberal media, and the university elite that are the accused.

If that's what you're arguing, then all I can say is that things haven't changed. We've had the liberal bias in the media forever. If you look at the stories about Republican candidates, you'll find the same subtle or not-so-subtle charges: Ronald Reagan was stupid, and just an actor; and GW was a stupid frat boy and cowboy. Today the charges are that Sarah Palin is stupid, and that McCain has changed from being a "good" Republican to a "bad" Republican. The change was due to his nomination, not any change in him.

Voter fraud has been a major issue and a major source of conservatives' complaint for years. In 2004 we had more people here in Milwaukee voting than there were eligible voters. We had the same groups getting phony signatures for registrations. Nothing has changed there, either.

If you don't believe the things that I highlighted, then you should be clear about that.

[ronnyreagan]

Voter fraud has been a major issue and a major source of conservatives' complaint for years.

Liberals complain about voter suppression and intimidation every year too - I think the point SS is trying to get across is that neither are necessarily true. Just because one team cries foul more often (and usually it's the losing one), doesn't mean the other side is committing more fouls.

And speaking of Wisconsin specifically - I see no way voter registration, and even voter fraud if it's ever proven, is going to "steal" this state from John McCain. Polling may not be reliable, people change their minds, and there a decent amount of "undecideds" left - but if McCain wins a state where polling shows him 13 points behind THEN I'll be suspicious. Voter fraud is obviously a problem and the consequences should be severe, but it's not stealing if you never had it to begin with.

I think conservatives would be wise to recognize a loss as a loss, return to their true principals and nominate someone people actually support rather than the lesser evil alternative. People are tired of it and will "throw away their vote" rather than support someone they dislike less (myself included). This aspect of the election is very similar to Bush's reelection - no one on the left was very excited about Kerry, they just didn't want Bush but that wasn't enough. The Obama supporters I meet actually LIKE most of his policies, while McCain seems to be getting most of his votes from people who don't like Obama (and I guess some who REALLY like Palin).

[longeyes]

This Election will mark the end of legitimacy for the current views of suffrage.  The first "fraud" is allowing people to vote who have zero understanding of the issues and zero earned stake in the political outcome.

A big chunk of America will disdain election results from here on out.

And the rule of law will be next, as people wonder why they elect anyone when the real legislating is done from the bench by oligarchs.

[Monkeyleg]

ronnyreagan, if it's necessary for you to interpret what shootinstudent is trying to say, then he's not making his case well enough over several posts.

Voter fraud isn't a perception, it's a reality, and it doesn't matter if "my side" is winning or not. That's like saying that many homes in my neighborhood have been burglarized, but it's okay, because mine hasn't.

...but it's not stealing if you never had it to begin with.

It's not about stealing elections, it's about stealing votes! Every fraudulent votes steals the vote of someone else.

I don't expect McCain to win Wisconsin, which is why I voted for Hillary in the primary (I'd rather have her than Obama). But that's not the point.

Voter fraud exists, and exists on the rather massive scale that it does, because it benefits the Democrat party. I thought Mark Belling made a good point a couple of weeks ago: we would have voter ID laws in every state if Republicans started engaging in voter fraud. But we won't, because it's illegal.

Yesterday the Republican party sent me an application for an absentee ballot. I didn't need it, because I like going to the polls.

However, it would be very easy for me to request an absentee ballot for my wife, who's not going to vote this year. She's already registered, so I could cast votes on her behalf. And who would know? The answer is that I would.

The Obama supporters I meet actually LIKE most of his policies..

That's remarkable. Obama supporters I meet don't have any idea what his policies are, nor could they articulate the ramifications of his policies even if they knew them. Perhaps the people you're talking to like the idea of getting free money. That wouldn't surprise me, as one poll I saw (may have been a Rasmussen poll) showed that nearly 50% of those polled thought that "sharing the wealth" was a good idea.

In the end, though, this thread is about voter fraud and, again, I think we're going to see it on a massive scale, perhaps so massive that it will give Obama the presidency illegitimately. If Obama wins by more than just a few percentage points, then I will just have to console myself with the fact that, for all of the advantages Obama has had, he should have won by a huge margin. If that's the case, then he will not have the mandate to govern from the extreme left.

[Marvin Dao]

CNN.com actually has a front pager on voter fraud. Unsurprisingly, it's yet another Evil Republicans (tm) piece.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/rigging.election/index.html

And speaking of Wisconsin specifically - I see no way voter registration, and even voter fraud if it's ever proven, is going to "steal" this state from John McCain. Polling may not be reliable, people change their minds, and there a decent amount of "undecideds" left - but if McCain wins a state where polling shows him 13 points behind THEN I'll be suspicious. Voter fraud is obviously a problem and the consequences should be severe, but it's not stealing if you never had it to begin with.

Given the spectacular unreliability of polling throughout the primaries, I wouldn't be surprised if a 13 point polling lead doesn't hold up.

[HankB]

. . . The reason Biden gets away with it is probably that his gaffes are mainly factual and to do with a lack of tact . . .

McCain messed up his facts about *expletive deleted*it and Sunni Moslems, and the media was all over it for several days. Obama said he campaigned in 57 states, and most of the media spiked the story.

I watch Fox news a lot and in the last week or so I watched it to see if they really were trying to beat up on Obama and praise McCain. To be honest I didn't see it. I did see bad and good about both candidates, mistakes and positives pointed out about both candidates and running mates.

Uh oh . . . they cover both in an even handed manner? Then how can they lead us to the correct conclusions? Isn't the function of the media to mold public opinion, by presenting us with only the information required to lead us in the right direction?

. . . Obama supporters I meet don't have any idea what his policies are, nor could they articulate the ramifications of his policies even if they knew them.

But he's for CHANGE!!

[ronnyreagan]

I voted for Hillary in the primary (I'd rather have her than Obama).

Our disagreements run MUCH deeper than I had realized

Voter fraud exists, and exists on the rather massive scale that it does, because it benefits the Democrat party.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

IN WISCONSIN, voter fraud is rampant. Or so thought U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic, who began a hunt for fraudulent voters after John Kerry won Wisconsin by just 11,000 votes over George W. Bush in 2004, in an election that Republicans claimed was tainted by widespread voter fraud. But by the time he completed his work, Biskupic reported that he had uncovered no conspiracy to commit fraud. His prosecutors ended up charging only 14 people with voting illegally-and only four of them, all fellons ineligible to vote, were convicted...

Since 2002, the Justice Department has made an all-out effort to track down and convict fraudulent voters. By 2006, those efforts had yielded just 86 convictions nationwide, and many of those incidents, like the four Wisconsin cases, would not have been prevented by a voter ID requirement.

Maybe these guys are incompetent, maybe voter fraud is too hard to prosecute, I'm not really sure. I've seen a lot more worrying about voter fraud and accusations, than I've seen solid evidence of voter fraud. When searching for evidence in articles online - I only seem to get articles pointing out the lack of evidence (well, there was one article claiming that Diebold rigged a primary against Obama & Ron Paul... ) Maybe someone could point me to some evidence especially incidents that ID laws would prevent. If so, I would appreciate it.

[AJ Dual]

Our disagreements run MUCH deeper than I had realized
Do you have any evidence to support this?
Maybe these guys are incompetent, maybe voter fraud is too hard to prosecute, I'm not really sure. I've seen a lot more worrying about voter fraud and accusations, than I've seen solid evidence of voter fraud. When searching for evidence in articles online - I only seem to get articles pointing out the lack of evidence (well, there was one article claiming that Diebold rigged a primary against Obama & Ron Paul... ) Maybe someone could point me to some evidence especially incidents that ID laws would prevent. If so, I would appreciate it.

Vote fraud in Wisconsin is nearly impossible to prosecute.

When someone votes under a fake or assumed name (of a dead person, an accepted registration for a non-existant one, or the name of an inactive/non-voter etc.), who do you prosecute? Who was it? How do you catch them?

The article you cite above is a strawman argument. It's like how the anti-gunners try to use only justifiable homicide to quantify all defensive gun-use.  Biskupic wanted to sweep it under the rug as much as anyone else did, so only the air-tight cases were counted as "vote fraud".

However, in the last few election cycles, especially 2004, Milwaukee alone, four thousand-odd more votes were counted than there are actual residents.

"No voter fraud..." my ass. 

And the rally cry is always that photo ID and requiring pre-registration well in advance of election day is "voter suppression". What they're really dancing around is the assumption that inner-city minority residents are afraid or distrustful of ID and paperwork. I suppose that's supposed to be alluding to "institutional racisim". OTOH, it could also just denote a class of people for whom poor life-skills and moral bankruptcy is just an accepted way of life.

[Monkeyleg]

With Obama so far ahead in Wisconsin, groups like ACORN will probably focus their efforts on other states. However, when the numbers were closer, ACORN was advertising for jobs, and specifically targeted felons for employment.

Why felons? Could it be because felons are more likely to be willing to break the law?