Evidence Of Iowa Voting Fraud

reply to post by TupacShakur
You should all chew on this and let me know what you think: Iowa: Was the fix in? (a statistical analysis of the results):

Summary/TL;DR
Either the first precincts to report were widely unrepresentative of Iowa as a whole, or something screwy happened.

Interesting arguments among statisticians (and whoever else). General summary is either pretty much only Paul-supporting precincts were reporting for about the first 25%, or someone fudged the numbers later:

Conclusion
If my three assumptions are correct, the probability of observing partial results like we saw is extremely small. It’s much more likely that one of the assumptions is wrong. It could be that the early reports were wrong, though that seems unlikely. The other websites showed the same information or very similar, so it seems doubtful that an error occurred in passing along the information.

Was there something odd about the precincts that reported early? This is not something you could tell just by looking at split vs final data. The data clearly show that the later precincts disfavored Ron Paul, but that’s just what we want to know: did they really disfavor him, or was the data manipulated in some way. The question is, were any of the results faked, tweaked, massaged, Diebold-ed?

To answer that question, we’d need to know if these later precincts to report were expected, beforehand, to disfavor Ron Paul relative to the others. It would also help to look at entrance polling from all of the precincts, and compare the ones that were part of the early reporting versus those that were part of the later reports. At this point, I have to ask for help from you, citizen of the internet. Is this something we can figure out?

I disagree personally on both counts (somewhat), as I believe we merely saw the kick-in of Iowa GOP manipulation as more or less promised by Dee Dee Benkie the night before - the GOP was monitoring the vote and then deployed their swing voters accordingly when the course became obvious to steer it to the outcome they desired:


Regardless, I feel it was about the best possible outcome for Paul - statistically 2nd place, media heat off his back, Romney proven to be almost overshadowed by a long time single-digiter (only remaining non-Romney/non-Paul option is Huntsman: look for his bump coming soon when Santorum crashes) only blown up by the media the week or two before...

Fun times. Great place for Paul.

reply to post by Praetorius


I hope the media idolizes Huntsman as much as they do Rick Santorum, because once he gets up there. He won't go anywhere but up! Name me one bad thing about the guy??? You can't because it's as close to a true Ronald Reagan conservative as we have. Huntsman is the man to beat Romney. Ron Paul sadly is too fringe for the rest of America. If he couldn't win Iowa, He's not going to do any better in New Hampshire where everybody can vote.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
All I know is that if Rove is involved in any way whatsoever, it's crooked and fraudulent.

I have to try this again.

IT IS ALREADY CROOKED AND FRAUDULENT.

What cave was recently opened to let out all the people that have never seen politics go down in the US.

THIS WAS NOT A REAL VOTE.

When people randomly count yays, nays, slips of paper, whispers, raised hands, and just decide what the count is with no way to back it up, prove it, confirm it, or ever verify it there is nothing legitimate about it.
I am starting to think Ron Paul has tricked some of you into getting overly upset about things that do not matter just to be riled up for him.


I would love to know why there are all these Ron Paul supporters think there was supposed to be some big special realistic legitimate vote that would mean anything to them. It almost seems like NONE of them have a clue this is only a 30 year old poll, not a legitimate government function.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

You should all chew on this and let me know what you think: Iowa: Was the fix in? (a statistical analysis of the results):

Was there also an election at the same time as the Iowa junk going on?
I have a question.
Even if they just made votes up completely out of thin air, how is it fraud?
Who got elected president yesterday?

Why is this thread in the Skunkworks forum?

I don't think this falls under the pervue of "highly speculative" as several members have posted references. As wells as a new thread discussing an affidavit(sp?) making exactly this claim.

I'm confused.

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Praetorius

 

I hope the media idolizes Huntsman as much as they do Rick Santorum, because once he gets up there. He won't go anywhere but up! Name me one bad thing about the guy??? You can't because it's as close to a true Ronald Reagan conservative as we have. Huntsman is the man to beat Romney. Ron Paul sadly is too fringe for the rest of America. If he couldn't win Iowa, He's not going to do any better in New Hampshire where everybody can vote.

We'll see how it goes, jjf3rd77. I will say that out of the rest of the republicans, I (policy-wise) find Huntsman generally less offensive. I will also admit that it does weird me out a little bit that he's a cousin of Romney, with both of them being descended from founding mormon leadership, but that's possibly nothing more than my personal paranoia kicking in.

He does historically have issues with spending *increases* though - much in the vein of Reagan, agreed - and I'm of mixed opinions on his "driving privilege cards" for illegal immigrants, as well as reluctant support of a border fence (I'm sorry, it's simply one of the stupidest ideas ever). He also supports debt ceiling increases (with no clear fix for our related addiction from what I've seen & CATO analysis), the death penalty, and while the desire is noble, his support of prohibitionary policies it shortsighted.

For these and other reasons I can support him myself, but he'd likely be a better option than some of the others, granted. As far as how he does in the polling when his turn comes, only time will tell, but I think a few things will be problematic for him - fair or no - when the attention comes:
1) refusal to pledge not to raise taxes
2) refusal to sign pledge on balanced budgets (which earned him the ire of everyone's favorite Jim Demint)
3) he supported TARP and thought the government stimulus spending (an utter flop by all accounts) should have been *larger*
4) he views NAFTA (one of the worst things to happen to US jobs) has been “a success beyond anyone's expectations" - which I guess it was, depending on your perspective and the goal you're trying to accomplish...
5) I don't know how the rest of the country feels about it, but I have personal issues trusting anyone who's been a member of the CFR - not impossible, but hard. Could be an issue if made public?

And so on...

reply to post by CousinMarylin
No election, although the caucus is basically their version of one. No one got elected president, but delegates are awarded based on results, and it does also affect the presidential race otherwise as a matter of perception in the eyes of voters and later states, can affect fundraising, coverage, and various other things.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder


I requested that it was deleted because all of the so-called "evidence" basically amounted to nothing.

There's a YouTube video of Karl Rove describing a "gentlemens agreement", which I originally thought happened in two counties, but that actually only applied to a single precinct in one county.

Then there's that YouTube video that's completely unsourced that shows Ron Paul winning. There's no information about how many people were polled, where the polling was taken at, and stuff like that.

So really, all we have to go on is our speculation, distrust in the voting system and suspicion that powerful people would try to rig the election in order to get their preferred candidate to win. I didn't really want a thread like this to get on the front page.

But yeah there is that affidavit which describes Romney being given 20 more votes. He originally had 2, but it was turned into 22. The affidavit didn't specify if those votes were taken away from other candidates, or if they were created out of thin air. Maybe it was an error, but it could have been fraud I guess. I can't be sure either way.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Well I understand this particular thread's place a bit more now, so thank you.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

I hope the media idolizes Huntsman as much as they do Rick Santorum, because once he gets up there. He won't go anywhere but up! Name me one bad thing about the guy??? You can't because it's as close to a true Ronald Reagan conservative as we have. Huntsman is the man to beat Romney. Ron Paul sadly is too fringe for the rest of America. If he couldn't win Iowa, He's not going to do any better in New Hampshire where everybody can vote.

Huntsman? Who the hell is Huntsman anyway? Again I must point out that the proper manner to make a prediction is from humility. So we will see if those in NH vote the way you say. Personally, my advice is not to bet the farm on your own predictions.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Shark_Feeder

 

I requested that it was deleted because all of the so-called "evidence" basically amounted to nothing.

There's a YouTube video of Karl Rove describing a "gentlemens agreement", which I originally thought happened in two counties, but that actually only applied to a single precinct in one county.

That agreement sparked my interest - but only because you'd expect such an agreement after the count - basically saying that both sides agreed that the count was correct & the numbers were accurate.

I didn't see any evidence presented that the agreement was before the count - which would certainly be irregular...to use the polite term!