(I’ve said these things before, but this is the opening chapter in a kindle book on voter fraud I’m putting together with some others.)
If we can sum up the 2012 election in one word, “counterintuitive” would be it.
Virtually every thing we’re told today about the 2012 General Election is counterintuitive to what we were told only one day before the election or saw with our own eyes.
The Narrative: “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics” (Mark Twain)
All we can actually know are the raw numbers, the voter total, which state that President Obama, while garnering approximately 3.5m fewer voters than he did in 2008, defeated Mitt Romney, who received approximately one million fewer votes than did John McCain.
Even these numbers are counterintuitive, especially the Romney vote totals (the so-called missing white voters), but they are still the only raw numbers we have at our disposal. Whether they are also “factual” is another matter, which will serve as the foundation for our book.
Everything else we think we know about this election we got from polling, and the analysis of that polling, which established The Narrative that will carry us into the next election cycles. This analysis creates a reality which may very well not be true, but which will nonetheless define how GOP (and conservatives) candidates, and their campaign advisers, will lay out their arguments before voters. It also defines how those who stray from The Narrative will be branded.
There are two types of polling: Entrance and Exit.
You know the pre-election polling firms by heart; RealClearPolitics, Gallup, Rasmussen, Battleground, Pew, plus several more. What we sometimes overlook is that someone was paying these firms to do the polling in the first place. More often than not that someone is a news agency. The media. This is important to note for as the Left has beaten over our heads for over fifty years, going back to medical studies paid for by tobacco companies, the veracity of any report is drawn into question based largely on who paid for it.
This is a law which the Left prefers to apply selectively, but it is a law nonetheless. The rule today, and for the past several years, ever since government got out of the business of being an impartial arbiter between competing commercial and scientific interests, and instead became a party, is that there is no such thing as a true and unbiased report or finding that can be believed on its face.
Consequently we must always consider the biases behind the money when considering paid polling activity. Even a judge in courtroom would allow inferences to be drawn of this inherent potential for bias to the jury. The court would require the evidence to stand alone in order to be probative. Polling largely cannot.
About entrance polls, as you know, the closer one gets to the election the more refined they become, going from eligible voters to registered voters to likely voters. This is done for theater for the benefit of the wonks among us, for dramatic effect, rendering up the so-called “swing states” where all attention is directed in the last month of the election. Again, theater. The so-called know-nothings, the low information voters, know nothing of these polls. Or so we’re led to believe.
In 2008, there were 11 swing states, CO-FL-IN-MO-NV-NH-NM-NC-OH-PA-VA, Obama winning 8 of the 11. In 2012, swing states had reduced to 9; CO-FL-IA-NV-NH-NC-OH-VA-WI, Obama winning 8 of the 9, but both Florida and North Carolina being declared only after the election was called.
As much as we can infer bias in these polls, or the roll they played in the 2012 election, they did little to create The Narrative that quickly followed exit polling that began before noon on election day.
Exit polling gained from this election is largely reflected in the so-called “official” exit poll, compiled by Edison Media Research for the National Election Pool (NEP), a collection of all the major news networks plus the Associated Press. Information gained from this poll has already defined the media Narrative that will carry us through the next four years. It’s already in place, and for many of you, why you no longer watch national news, for almost every news story carries some element of the “truths” found in that Narrative.
Interestingly, Edison got the job after their predecessors bollocked up the Bush-Kerry race in 2004, causing everyone to believe Kerry had won by a comfortable margin when in fact he lost…also by a comfortable margin. To save face the media consortium was forced to go out an find another polling firm. This happens.
The 2004 race is worth analysis on this account alone, for essentially what we were given was exit polling that was skewed toward an expected result, and for some reason, I’m not sure why, that result didn’t happen. With egg on their face, the MSM had to hire a new firm, ostensibly with a better statistical methodology, but probably little different from the one it replaced. It was like hiring a new madam in a brothel after her predecessor came down with a social disease.
What went wrong in 2004 was the vote, not the exit polling. Things that were supposed to occur didn’t occur, assets that were supposed to be in place, didn’t materialize. The swing states didn’t swing. As we all know, the alliance that makes up the Democrat’s base is filled with fickle-buttons; unions, environmentalists, communists, feminists, gays, students, layabouts, close to a dozen, They all have their button. And to this day no one really knows how George W Bush was able to push any of them, in part because no one really asked. It wasn’t part of The Narrative.
Because Bush unexpectedly won, no new narrative emerged from the 2004 election, only a doubling down of the original narrative that was supposed to be, but never was.
From the election of 2008, Barack Obama was the only real narrative going forward. He embodied all the socialist causes, but considering the historical nature of his election (he would likely have beaten anyone in the GOP field that year, much less the hapless John McCain) they could never be articulated. Obama’s uniqueness transcended any “genuine” sea change in American culture. The media wished to portray an America that was now secular, even anti-religious, hip, even profane and promiscuous, color blind, to everyone but whites, gender neutral, to every one but heterosexual men, etc. In other words they wanted to create a narrative that comported with a socialist utopia as it is drawn up on paper, but which, when tried, lasts about as long as that first bureaucrat’s sixtieth paycheck (5 years)
So, it was the election of 2012, not 2008, that would confirm that The Narrative could move forward. But the ground was first broken on that ambition in 2006 with the Secretary of State’s Project and the advent of Netroots, when the Democrat leadership marched in lock step to kiss the (unwashed) feet of leftwing bloggers to assist in taking back Washington. (The right wing blogosphere never rose to the same levels of success as did the Left, in part because they didn’t know how. They were fighting two entirely different battles, and by hook or by crook, 2012 allowed the Left to walk away winners. Hands down.)
So, the lynchpin of the Democrat agenda was the vote itself, not the exit polling. The vote had to meet the narrative, rather than the narrative explaining the reality of the vote. Exit polling is only a general reflection of reality in the first place, never as exact as the 93%, 70%, 57% etc numbers they toss around. Add a plus or minus 10 and you may be in the ballpark. Besides, no libel ever accused the media of being able to see, much less report on, reality in any case.
The media needed a voter result that would confirm certain desired outcomes about new (and often non-existent) new American attitudes. The speed with which the American media was able to have their analyses streaming into the political coverage of the first 3-4 days after the election almost confirms there were pre-drawn narratives to explain this so-called change in culture, attitudes and voting patterns signalling that America is changing course.
What I have just written is what a prosecutor calls his opening remarks to the jury. “Here is the case I hope to prove.”
What I want to prove is the opportunity for fraud is on a giant scale. Not in the future, but right now.
The first step in making this case is to draw into question the veracity of polling. We can’t know with exactitude how correct exit polling is, but historically, 1980, 2000, and 2004, it was remarkably wrong. And shazzam, it always seemed to be wrong when a Republican won. So the smell of rigging should always hang over exit polling, just as every polling place should be viewed as a crime scene. I was surprised so many people were so willing to accept it. That too was counterintuitive.
My job here is to debunk the infallibility, even reliability, of the exits poll, for by doing so, it causes us to look at reasons why exit polling would be deliberately wrong. By “proving” to the extent we can, that the exit polls of 2012 were wrong or rigged, then, to what end?
This is where we define motive.
One conclusion could be to provide a feint, a sleight of hand, to misdirect citizens and political analysts alike away from the fraud that has just occurred under their noses. Consider how enamored Rush Limbaugh is already with the “low-information voter” meme, a narrative he will deliciously carry into 2016. I’m sure there will be t-shirts. The media created these creatures, yet refuses to admit they exist, and while they have always been with us, I still can’t see that more of them voted in 2012, or that they somehow miraculously made up the difference for the big swing by independents toward Romney.
Or how about widening the rift between conservatives and Establishment Republicans, who will believe anything so long as they can think they are still relevant, or believe they can stand alone without conservatives? The new narrative from the 2012 election insures that the GOP will continue to chase after that forever elusive butterfly of being almost the same as Democrats, only much better looking. All this, from Limbaugh, to conservative blogging, to the GOP, insures that politics at the national level will be played on a field designed by Democrats, and more or less according to rules (The Narrative) they drew up, for that’s what the exit polls have confirmed.
Whether by intent, or mere peradventure (I’m going with intent) it means that the Republican Party, having abandoned its brand, both the one going back to Lincoln as well as the more recent retreat on taxes and fiscal responsibility, will cease to exist as a viable political opponent to the political Left. But this doesn’t mean they will die and go away, but rather that their disappearance will depend on how much the Democrats will want to keep them around, for their presence does seem to have a palliative effect on that majority of Americans who continue to believe that as long as there is a two-party system all is well and things will eventually work out in the end. The Republicans represent a state of normalcy…when no such state exists anymore. If you’re a Democrat you can see the beneficial nature of this arrangement.
Almost as if on cue, within 48 hours, this desired Narrative had not just been confirmed, but put out there in the airwaves in volumes, that Obama’s re-election was a watershed event; ushering in a new importance of the Latino vote, who the GOP must pursue harder, but on ideological leftist terms, the constancy of the black vote (93%), for Obama would be toast were it shown he actually received a lower percent of the black vote that previous Democrats (which is likely so, and almost for sure received fewer black votes than any Democrat in a generation), the anger of the unmarried woman over free contraception (67%) who ranked this freebie over job loss and job insecurity, and of course, the disappearing white vote. Only who disappeared, Tea Party conservatives or moderate Republicans?
None of this makes sense. It’s counterintuitive.
The case for massive, systematic voter fraud in America is circumstantial. Outside voter fraud has always been with us. You know, where ACORN A pays Schlub B to step inside with a fake ID and try to vote. In Philadelphia, that isn’t necessary, while in Kansas, it isn’t worthwhile. More moonshining sheriffs have been elected with this sort of fraud than congressmen. These escapades never produce results that can turn even a precinct, let alone a district or state. Nothing to compare to what Alan Grayson and the National Election Pool pulled off in Florida in 2000. Or what Jennifer Brunner achieved in Ohio by 2008.
Massive voter fraud has to be an “inside job”. And since 2006 and the Secretary of State Project the Left has been working assiduously to create situations; in registration, absentee ballots, same-day registration, wi-fi based touch-screen voting machines, early voting, etc., that can swing entire states without so much as a hint of fraud. In fact, I think they send in illiterate Mexicans, as occurred in Fairfax, VA, solely with the intent to pull a stunt.
Virginia is an object of study for just this reason, since every voting jurisdiction is run by Republicans, but were never looking for the sort of fraud that may have occurred. Consequently, if/when it occurred, they are the strongest defenders. Certain laws of bureaucracy always apply.
Without proper oversight (which this book is all about) one paid poll worker, with a simple nod of the head, can allow hundreds of illegal votes to pass through the gates. And as few as fifty per precinct can often do it. The same goes for a clever hacker, who can throw away as many GOP votes as necessary without raising any suspicion.
When this occurs you have a situation which, with no smoking gun, in large part due to bureaucratic pride (such as Republican Virginia) can continue for years and years.
In this way, the Republican Party, and any conservative candidate, are faced with the prospects of always appearing to come up short in every election. All the media has to do is script a new narrative explaining the prearranged defeat. In 2012 it was the disappearing white vote for Romney, or the rising Low Information stupid-vote for the Democrats, neither of which is even remotely quantifiable. Or the disappearance of the Tea Parties, many of whom I am sure are quite cynical about the process by now, having worked so hard to gin up support for a candidate that was never their first choice, and then be accused by exit polls of having not shown up at all.
Yes, it’s counterintuitive.
We plan to examine all this in coming months. But while a circumstantial case is difficult to get a conviction, it is much easier when its principal pillars are mathematics. They carry a weight that trumps even intuition.
African-American Math, why Exit polls are wrong
(You’ll be happy to know that I deleted approximately 1500 words for your benefit, which I’ll include in the book version.)
The logic is mathematical, which is a higher grade of circumstantial evidence.
Consider this: Half of all African-Americans (42m) live in what was once called the Bible Belt. A little over 21 million. But in the South (Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, etc) as many as half of those live in the inner cities and are considered by many to be no different in their voting patterns than inner city blacks in Cleveland, New York and Philadelphia.
This is not quite so, for most southern blacks, even in the city, are tied to church, and as we saw in the 2012 North Carolina referendum on gay marriage, along with rural blacks, they carried the day defeating that measure against a strong Democrat coalition. In inner cities, countryside and towns, blacks lined up against gay marriage. This is fact, no intuition required.
In part because of this, a league of African-American ministers lobbied hard against President Obama, gay marriage just one of many issues raised. Higher unemployment and being taken for granted also scored high. Southern pulpits rang with this rage against the policies of this administration for two months before the election at least.
Now, while blacks are not inclined to vote for Republicans, even though Dr King was one, they are inclined to sit such an election out. In the rural south this is easier to do than in the urban cities, where many black voters are expected to show up for the van-pool to the election site (or have a doctor’s note, like a kid in school). Many are made to believe their welfare check depends on them voting for the Democrat on the ticket, as Attorney General Holder tried to threaten one North Carolina town where party affiliation had been stricken from the local ballots. Some even, Philadelphia, Cleveland, have monitors looking over their shoulder making sure they don’t vote wrong. And if they are sick, someone may even come in and vote for them. Proxies abound in inner city precincts.
Bottom line is that in the South, while Obama still won black precincts, he rarely got over 70% of the vote, only in a few precincts up to 80-85%, but nothing like the purported national average of 93%. Virginia was probably closer to 75% overall. If that range holds for the rest of the South, how strong does the northern half have to be to reach a national level of 93%? Well, math, not circumstantial evidence, tells us how to get to that number:
If Obama got 75% of votes in the South, in order to get 93% of all voters, he would have to have gotten 111% of the rest, which in certain precincts in the north is possible, but impossible for the whole region.
But still, no one knows HOW MANY blacks voted at all. Again, intuition tells us a lot stayed home. The number of 16.63 million who voted for Obama in 2008 probably dropped, but no math I can find can tell me with any certainty, yet they claim 300,000 more voted.
Closing the book on exit polling, the process itself is a series of hand-offs, much like voting, where a voter and his vote pass through several hands before being counted and certified. There are several places along the way to masquerade, waylay, misdirect, or burn that vote. The same with the original questionnaire asked of approximately 30,000 voters, in 300 “randomly” selected precincts around the question, out of over 122 million voters (roughly .00025%).
As I began bias in inferential in polling, especially exit polling, since it sets The Narrative for the next four years.
When that polling and Narrative are counterintuitive to what we believe and know going in, we have to ask , which came first, the election or The Narrative?
And if The Narrative came first, then just how secure can we feel about the election results?
Now, catching them at this would be nice, and yes, it can be done. It would be a great statistical undertaking, but as General Eisenhower once said, “When you ask the right questions, you’re 80% closer to the truth.’ (Or something like that.)
But it can’t undo anything.
To convince you that these exit polls provide cover for systematic voter fraud is my main purpose here and we simply cannot proceed, election after election, with millions of dollars laid out, to gain something that has been predetermined not to be within reach.
It would be important to prove this if I wanted to convict someone, and in the court of public opinion, perhaps I can. But that is secondary to the more immediate mission of establishing a regime of prevention. In due course, this can be accomplished by a national program, but led first by a series of state inititiative, probably clandestinely carried out, to catalog the problems each of the states seem to confront (they are several and different). Thousands of man hours will be required in a very short period of time, under two years, and then, advancing on a 12-18 month training regimen to train a new generation of poll watchers, both inside and outside the polling places.
Authored By Unified Patriots » vassarbushmills