Because Obama may actually lose

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,945
Points
113
It's time to deny the possibility it might actually be the will of the voters. Close in the polls indicates this is true.

The next whiney, lazy, hallucination of a conspiracy theory.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12204-does-the-romney-family-now-own-your-e-vote

Never mind these machines counted all those votes for Obama, for Democrats in 2006, and gave the Democrats the House and Senate in 2010.
 
Denny Crane said:
It's time to deny the possibility it might actually be the will of the voters. Close in the polls indicates this is true.

The next whiney, lazy, hallucination of a conspiracy theory.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12204-does-the-romney-family-now-own-your-e-vote



Never mind these machines counted all those votes for Obama, for Democrats in 2006, and gave the Democrats the House and Senate in 2010.
Click to expand...

So, you oppose leftist conspiracy theories, yet you gleefully indulge yourself in every rightist conspiracy theory that comes down the pike?

barfo
 
Skewed polls!
 
barfo said:
So, you oppose leftist conspiracy theories, yet you gleefully indulge yourself in every rightist conspiracy theory that comes down the pike?

barfo
Click to expand...

He's a true independent that's for sure.....
 
What rightist conspiracy theories are you talking about?
 
I heard Obama's birth certificate smoked pot in Kenya with the Unabomber.
 
Denny Crane said:
What rightist conspiracy theories are you talking about?
Click to expand...

skewed polls, global warming are the two that come to mind immediately.

barfo
 
I guess I can be a bit more clear about my answer.

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.
Click to expand...

I don't see any covert group or organization being behind global warming theories or skewing the polls.

The only similarity between global warming and a conspiracy theory would be all those scientists who got busted for jiggering their data to fit their thesis. Scientists can actually (gasp!) be wrong.

Just as pollsters can be wrong. When Democrats didn't like the pollsters' results, they complained they weren't calling enough cell phones. Perhaps by calling cell phones they're getting better results.
 
so denny, you think its cool that they own the voting machines? i mean this is some 3rd world shit right here
 
One would hope there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent any legitimate threats to voter, or vote tally, fraud.
 
In no way do I believe in the conspiracy theory, but it is not clear to me why voting machines are owned by corporations rather than the government. Seems like vote counting is a legitimate service for the government to provide.

barfo
 
No, I don't see an issue with a private company owning the machines. If the govt. throws a party, they might rent tables and balloons from a caterer and has no need to own that stuff.

It would be entirely a different thing if the company that owned the machines also ran the polls (which it doesn't).

When the votes are counted, they're sent by fax or email or whatever to the atty. general of the state. Is it a problem that the govt. is using phone lines owned by a private company?
 
Of course you can hack any kind of computer if you have physical access to it. It wouldn't matter if the machines were made and/or owned by the govt. or any company if the precincts allow people to physically modify the voting machines.
 
its easier to hack your own computer, but whatevz
 
It's easy to carry around a stack of punch card ballots with manufactured votes for your favorite candidate and add those to the of votes to be counted. If you're going to let people have access to the physical machines without supervision and enough time to hack on them, it'd be no different than letting someone in a mechanical voting machine and allowing them to vote as many times as they want.

The vetting process done by the states and the feds would involve scrutinizing every single line of source code and finished code in the machines.
 
so you are saying ballot fraud doesnt exist?

or just that paper ballots are easier to rig?

i think the nature of the physical evidence they produce makes paper balloting harder to defraud
 
I'm saying if you're looking at any of the technologies, they can be defeated. There's nothing suspicious about the electronic machines. And I read up about the ones in question and it looks to me like they are literally designed with peoples' complaints about the previous generation machines in mind. Like having a paper receipt, no touch screen, not connected to any network whatsoever by any means, etc.
 
I believe in the auditing process. If government owned the voting machines, does anyone think there wouldn't fraud? Ridiculous.

Government employees are in the business of keeping their jobs. Which party is more likely to protect government employees? If a private company tries to defraud the public, the government can double-check and that company will go out of business. It's a big price to pay just to elect your candidate. If a government employee commits fraud by messing with the voting machines, it's much less likely to be audited. Also, that person would be unlikely to lose his or her job, much less the entire staff.

I find it hilarious the government is some neutral arbiter.
 
YOU DON'T NEED ID TO VOTE YO. SO THERES FRAUD THERE SON.
 
RealClearPolitics top story under Electoral College Battle (first link in the left column).

"Latest Ohio Polls Show Dead Heat."

Sure enough, the last 4 polls show:
Obama +1
Obama +3
TIE
Obama +1
(within the margin of error in all cases, > +1 in one poll)
 
If your best hope is that he's within the MOE, you're losing.
 
If the polls were outside the margin of error in your favor (e.g. Obama +5.5 on Oct. 3), and now they're even or +/- 1, the guy who's in the lead looks like he's losing that lead. Make that "has lost that lead."
 
I'm still pretty confident Obama will win, though in all honestly it's becoming a lot closer than I thought it would be. I'll give him about an 80% chance and expect him to pull away in the polls after another solid debate tomorrow.
 
julius said:
If your best hope is that he's within the MOE, you're losing.
Click to expand...

Usually, I would agree, but look at the crosstabs. Most of these polls are assuming 2008 turnout models. If there is another 2008 turnout, then Romney's going to lose and lose big. However, what if it looks more like 2010? What if it's more like 2004? Then it's a wildly different story.

I look at the actions of the candidates. North Carolina is gone. Obama has pulled out and Romney sent his top guy to Ohio. Florida and Virginia are likely gone. The campaigns have lessened their appearances in each state. Obama is campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Ryan is campaigning in Pennsylvania. Both are covering Ohio like crazy. Romney is coming to Colorado the day after the debate (I don't know if the President is returning). That tells you what their internals are telling them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top