|
44984. arkymalarky - 11/6/2012 4:46:15 PM I just don't see how silver or anyone who draws similar conclusions would be the focus. If the polls were mixed, then maybe. You don't change methodology based on results if data leads to them. You change data collection. 44985. arkymalarky - 11/6/2012 4:48:46 PM For silver, he will have to look at whether he gave disproportionate weight to battleground states if, for instance, Obama loses Ohio, or wins it and loses anyway. Or his weight of the # and strength of paths to victory for either candidate. 44986. arkymalarky - 11/6/2012 4:52:05 PM IOW, what 3i said. Which I just now read. 44987. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:10:08 PM Re. 44981 -
You'll have to help me out here. I'm not up to date on what you're complaining about. Is it anything you think is illegal, because the Democrats have taken everything else off the table, at a minimum.
44988. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:19:41 PM Republicans go on and on about voter fraud, when their has been very little evidence of it...
The forced dissolution of ACORN argues otherwise - they were responsible for thousands of documented cases nationwide of voter fraud during the last election cycle. You Lefties treat it as a big joke when there are more registered voters in certain precincts, such as in Philadelphia, than citizens, but I assure you it isn't - it's vote fraud all set to happen.
Also, there is no legitimate reason to argue against voter identification at the polls, but certainly plenty of illegitimate reasons as Democrats have undoubtedly strategized in backroom meetings for decades. I don't give a flip what you say; all this just screams opening the door to enabling vote fraud.
Besides, you implicitly have owned the Democrat Party up to it with your little argument - if you felt that Republicans were guilty of any significant amount of vote fraud, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs for voter photo id at polling places. 44989. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:27:55 PM iiibbb -
I want to hear something from you other than crickets about such as the fact the North Carolina has over 2,000 registered voters on their rolls at least 110 years old when there are less than 400 in the entire United States.
The vast majority of these Tarheel superecentarians vote Democrat, according to voting records. And this is clearly just the tip of the vote fraud iceberg here. If you are satisfied with that, you are totally on the wrong side of the vote fraud issue. 44990. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:28:44 PM supercentenarians
44991. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:29:45 PM So, I reject your argument that vote fraud is not an ongoing problem.
44992. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:31:21 PM Vote fraud is very real and present, and cries for real solutions. 44993. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:31:48 PM All of which iiibbb presumably opposes.
44994. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:35:56 PM So what are the Democrats giving voters in Reid's home state this time - bus transportation and a free hour for Filipino and Latino immigrants at the slot machines in exchange for voting straight ticket Democrat?
Reid is one of the most 'out there' crooks and scumbags in existence with his mob/casino connections. 44995. iiibbb - 11/6/2012 5:39:40 PM Conc'd we're talking percentages... Did the 2000 people on the rolls actually vote? Or are they just registered.
How much individual voter fraud is going on out there as a percentage? It is in the 100ths or 1000ths of a percent as far as I could find in the things I've read.
Now compare that to the thousands of legitimate voters who actually showed up at a polling location who have to stand in line for 4-9 hours? How about the thousands of legitimate voters who's voting window was shortened because the Florida governor decided not to accommodate them?
We're talking real people vs. your possible people. 44996. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:42:52 PM Good thing for the Democrat Party there isn't a 'Truth in Advertising' law for politics, or they might have to rename themselves the 'Entitlements and Corruption Party'. 44997. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:46:42 PM Conc'd we're talking percentages... Did the 2000 people on the rolls actually vote? Or are they just registered.
There's no justifiable reason for keeping in place a broken process that requires having to ask that question, because nobody could possibly effectively control such an out of control registration process except by purging ineligible voters.
That's the only responsible, fair, and practicable way to handle the situation, period. And if you weren't certain that the problem was only benefitting Democrats, you would be a poll purging fanatic yourself.
44998. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:48:51 PM A couple days ago, the MSM was trumpeting a *single* woman that was found trying to vote Republican at two different voting locations. This is how I know if your ox was being gored, you'd be out there on the street with the torches and pitchforks crowd yourself howling for vote roll purging. 44999. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:51:17 PM And screaming how corrupt and worthless Republicans are.
Think on this. The same applies in reverse. 45000. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:54:03 PM I hope if there are any state level recount scenarios after this election, the Republicans out do Gore and the Democrats in 2000. 45001. iiibbb - 11/6/2012 5:54:56 PM
Concerned, I'm more "concerned" about this than I am about names on a roll. Names on a roll are not equal to a vote for Romney... but apparently a vote for Obama equals a vote for Romney. 45002. concerned - 11/6/2012 5:55:30 PM Well, maybe not. Republicans naturally respect laws more than Gore and Democrats do. 45003. iiibbb - 11/6/2012 5:56:18 PM ... you are so full of turds with that post after my video ...
|
