Obama won by MILLIONS MORE than we've been told - by Mark Crispin Miller

[kpete]

Obama won by MILLIONS MORE than we've been told

by Mark Crispin Miller Page 2 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com


For all of them, the copious and specific evidence of vote suppression and election fraud last year does not exist. Period. Their blinders keep them happily unmindful of--and, therefore, indifferent to--the millions who'd been "legally" purged from the voter rolls by BushCo's DoJ, or purged illegally by partisan administrators and/or party operatives, or kept from voting by too few machines (there having been--again--long, long, long lines in Democratic precincts only), or had their votes flipped electronically (with or without their seeing it happen), or disinformed, or misdirected, or intimidated; and so on.

Although such moves have long since been well-documented by election monitors, both individual and institutional, our press remains convinced that all of that is only so much "theory" ("conspiracy theory"). Thus they can't report what's right in front of them-- any more than they can see, or say, what also really happened in this decade's prior elections:

Chances are, Obama's landslide won't last forever. Retroactive vote reporting tends to be a proxy for popularity. Just ask George W. Bush. In a 2006 NYT poll, more people said they voted for John Kerry in 2004 than voted for Bush.

..................

The "liberal media," in short, does not much care about, or for, democracy; and neither do the Democrats (or Pres. Obama). And so it's up to all the rest of us to face the facts about what really happened in the last election (and the ones before), or we will never, ever, get the change we voted for, and must keep fighting for.

more:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Obama-won-by-MILLIONS-MORE-by-Mark-Crispin-Mille-090620-161.html

[pleah]

1. K&R

[RandomThoughts]

2. Yea with so many comments about election results.

You would think a news room would be pointing out the flaws in our electronic voting machine, voter polls in 2004, Florida 2000. Voter purges, And other irregularities.



But they don't want to talk about that.

[tom_paine]

3. Of course he did. Be glad the Bushies let him win at all. Of course they had to or risk an Iran.

After 8 years of continuous totalitarian corruption, abuse and insults to the intelligence, there was a slight chance the American Subject Populace might "do an Iran".

Besides, the Bushies can afford to be patient. It's quite clear Obama is not going to upset their long-term plans, I am sorry to say.

[tom_paine]

4. Page One of this article is missing. Click on the link an dpage 2 comes up again.

We should contact OpEd News and let them know, because I'm sure we would all like to see that Page One.

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. it makes more sense without the first page

Officially, Obama won the popular vote by 53%, with John McCain and Sarah Palin taking 46%--a lead of seven points. But according to what people told the pollsters at the Wall Street Journal, Obama seems to have prevailed by eleven points: 50%-39%. And the New York Times reports that people claim to have voted for Obama by some 28 points, 60%-32%.

first page

You've got to infer that the polls aren't very reliable, since they're nowhere near each other. But MCM blithely concludes:

Thus Obama's win was not a mere "decisive victory," as all the press (and he) agreed. It was a landslide, like in 1932, with the Republicans not just refuted but completely routed.

Is this because Miller has evidence that these retrospective reports are accurate -- well, at least for some pollsters? On the contrary, he says:

Chances are, Obama's landslide won't last forever. Retroactive vote reporting tends to be a proxy for popularity.

That actually isn't quite right, either, but it's revealing nonetheless. Miller spends most of his essay blasting some Slate writer for saying that retrospective voting reports aren't accurate, and then admits that they aren't.

[Wilms]

7. And MCM goes as far as to make reference to what he sees as tortured logic.

Funny that.

[mcranor]

14. I have to Ask

Dear OTOH,

I have to say, I sometimes get the impression that it may be your actual job to meet every assertion of election fraud (within minutes, if possible) with a 'refutation' -- often, sad to say, a somewhat smug and mildly insulting refutation.

Often your tone suggests that anyone who sees evidence of electronic tampering is deluded, almost as if no such thing could possibly even exist. So, after years of reading your posts, I am driven to ask: What would you consider legitimate evidence of electronic tampering or fraud? Does such an animal even exist in your universe? We have often heard decried the 'undetectability' of electronic tampering. Is this your belief, that it actually is undetectable, so trying to detect it is a fool's enterprise?

[Wilms]

16. In fact there's nothing in the way of evidence in the Miller piece.

On this very forum there's a story about dozen of OpScan failures across the country. But that's not offered here as evidence. Some exit poll taken well after the fact is. You find that reliable?

What evidence do you have to offer in support of the assertion made in the OP?

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. let's see

I have to say, I sometimes get the impression that it may be your actual job to meet every assertion of election fraud (within minutes, if possible) with a 'refutation'...

Well, no, you didn't have to say that. For the record, it's completely untrue. And, umm, pleased to meet you.

WRT Miller, I don't know what "smug" has to do with it, but frankly, many of his arguments are insultingly weak, and I think it's a shame that he offers those. Probably what you're reading as smugness is anger.

So, after years of reading your posts, I am driven to ask....

Wow, that's weird. Just saying.

What would you consider legitimate evidence of electronic tampering or fraud? Does such an animal even exist in your universe? We have often heard decried the 'undetectability' of electronic tampering. Is this your belief, that it actually is undetectable, so trying to detect it is a fool's enterprise?

I don't think that electronic tampering is inherently undetectable, although some forms probably aren't directly detectable. As for indirect detection, it depends. Going back to 2004, if the exit polls were closer to the pre-election polls than to the official returns, I would (all else equal) tend to think that the exit polls were more accurate than the official returns. In reality, the exit polls tend to disagree with both pre-election polls and official returns, which is one reason among many that I believe the polls were wrong. We could talk about all sorts of other ways that electronic fraud might be indirectly detected.

I think it's rash to vote on electronic voting machines because they offer no reliable means of verification. I don't think that trying to detect electronic tampering is a fool's enterprise -- and I've spent a lot of time looking for the evidence (as I would think you would know after years of reading my posts!) -- but I certainly wouldn't count on detecting it, either.

[mcranor]

18. Actually, pleased to meet you, too.

And it's not so weird, really. Like a lot of people, I have a suspicion that we've been duped. I want evidence. I have followed the discussions for years, you Febble, TIA, and all the others, thrashing around trying to figure out what happened. You're one who seems to know a thing or two. You also have a track record of refuting, almost instantly, any claim of statistical evidence. It crossed my mind long ago that you (and perhaps Febble) might being 'doing a job' for someone. Your long, detailed argumentation almost always ends up at the same place: "not enough evidence to prove fraud, but just enough to 'suggest' that it wasn't."

You and Febble are anonymous strangers to me, and I don't post often anyway, so until now, I've never put the question - partly because it is so obviously impertinent. But I've wondered for a long time, and so I did finally feel driven, and I chose the expression 'I have to say..." deliberately, though of course it is not literally true. Your reflexive snideness aside, I do appreciate your response, and all your hard work.

mc

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. here's something to think about

Don't you suppose that from my point of view, your two posts seem fairly smug and snide? And how much snarkier might you be if you had to put up with insinuations like these -- which, you must be aware, are not original to you? Seriously. But if these questions have been nagging at you, I hope my responses are helpful.

I can't prove fraud in FL-13 in 2006, but there's a very solid case that Jennings should have won -- just like there's a solid case that Gore should have won Florida in 2000. I don't think the methods have an inherent reactionary bias, or whatever. But when Miller, in the first few paragraphs of his op-ed, treats the retrospective poll results as if they are gospel (even though they contradict each other), and then admits later that they should be expected to change, well, it's weak. Someone might as well say so. I respect people who work harder at making sense. For instance, John Gideon busted his butt to be well informed, and he backed up his claims -- or retracted them on the rare occasions that he got something wrong. I guess he wasn't an A-list media star, but I daresay he was pretty damn effective. John Gideon a very high standard, but there are plenty of people with the same commitment to getting stuff right. Very cool.

[mcranor]

20. Quite Right

"Don't you suppose that from my point of view, your two posts seem fairly smug and snide?"

Yup, conceded. Sorry for that.

Thanks for the John Gideon tip.

mc

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. 'sok

It's good for me to be reminded that every conversation starts from scratch, no matter how familiar it seems to me!

[Stevepol]

6. I had no trouble bringing up pg one. Here it is:

Polls now tell us that Americans claim to have voted for Barack Obama by far larger margins than those indicated on Election Day.

Officially, Obama won the popular vote by 53%, with John McCain and Sarah Palin taking 46%--a lead of seven points. But according to what people told the pollsters at the Wall Street Journal, Obama seems to have prevailed by eleven points: 50%-39%. And the New York Times reports that people claim to have voted for Obama by some 28 points, 60%-32%.

Thus Obama's win was not a mere "decisive victory," as all the press (and he) agreed. It was a landslide, like in 1932, with the Republicans not just refuted but completely routed.

Now, here in what we might call "the real world," such disparities make perfect sense, since they reflect the fact that millions of Americans were variously disenfranchised on Election Day, just as they'd been throughout the decade.



But out in the Bizarro Universe constructed by the US press, those startling polls cannot mean that millions of Americans were disenfranchised by the GOP, since no Americans were disenfranchised (although some few surely were affected, here and there, by "computer glitches").

Not a bit of it! Rather, what those polls suggest, as Slate's Christopher Beam asserts below, is that people are simply lying--a "fact" without a shred of evidence to back it up.

A sample of Beam's logic:

Are people really lying about having voted for Obama?
Yes, they are. It's common for more people to claim they voted for a president than actually did. In the 1930s, George Gallup found that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was more popular in post-election polls than he was on Election Day. The same was true after the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush lost the popular vote. By 2004, polls showed Bush having won in a landslide.

So Gallup said that "more people claimed to vote for" FDR than really did? Or did he simply find that Roosevelt "was more popular in post-election polls than he was on Election Day"?

And then, as further "evidence" that people lie about their votes, Beam argues, weirdly, that "the same was true after the 2000 election," since Bush lost that contest--then "won in a landslide" four years later.

What?

What "landslide"? Even the official outcome had Bush "winning" by 3 million votes. In any case, how do those (alleged) Bush votes serve the argument that "people really lying about voting for Obama"?

Without pausing to explain, Beam then notes that the gap between these new polls and the (seeming) outcome on Election Day is so wide that (what we might call) the Lying Thesis can't account for it entirely. And so Beam spins through a range of further speculations to explain those gross disparities--that is, explain those gross disaprities away.

"The main explanation for the gap, say pollsters, is people who didn't vote at all saying they did." Any evidence to back that up? No way! Beam then claims that people probably just plain forgot which candidate they'd voted for, and notes as well that "people do a poor job of reporting past behaviors." Any evidence of such forgetfulness, or that anyone has "misreported" his or her own votes? None whatever!

Beam then invokes "the group of McCain voters that either regrets their pick or would rather not admit it to a pollster." This is, of course, the old"reluctant responder" hypothesis --which, pre-Election Day, was trotted out to tell us why Obama couldn't win; and now Beam's using it to tell us, tacitly, why Obama didn't really win so big. And is there any evidence for that claim? Of course not!

The reason why Beam's logic is so tortured, and why he and his editors don't see the need for any evidence to back up his fantastic claims, is that the only rational explanation for "the gap" in question is that millions of Americans were variously disenfranchised on Election Day; and that's a fact (i.e., not mere speculation) that neither Beam nor his superiors --nor most US reporters, left and right--can let themselves perceive.

[troubledamerican]

8. B-b-but ACORN. B-b-but CLINTON. B-b-b-but the LIBRUL MEDIA.

[L. Coyote]

9. It is very common for people to declare they voted for the winner after the fact.

We all know what problems there are with voting rights. We also know not to trust post facto polling.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. McCain is a Cylon

[Wilms]

11. You betcha, he is.

http://www.429truth.com/2008/09/01/john-mccain-is-a-cylon/

[eridani]

12. The biggest problem that we have here is that laws are made by people who have won elections

Incumbents who win by 60/40 are not interested in being told that they won by 62/38, or by 58/42. And winners of close elections REALLY don't want to consider the possibility that 51/49 was 50/50 or 49/51.

[jazzjunkysue]

13. I've heard him speak live. Very compelling. He said Kerry knew the election was rigged.

He knew in a week, it was rigged, before he conceeded.

They all give into the actual power: The Press.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.