There it was, on the front page of The Philadelphia Inquirer:
Romney scored 0 in some city zones
Miriam Hill, Andrew Seidman, and John Duchneskie, Inquirer Staff Writers
Posted: Monday, November 12, 2012, 5:30 AMIt’s one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.
These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.
“We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic,” said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. “It’s kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia.”
Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats.
Cities are not only bursting with Democrats: They are easier to organize than rural areas where people live far apart from one another, said Sasha Issenberg, author of The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.
“One reason Democrats can maximize votes in Philadelphia is that it’s very easy to knock on every door,” Issenberg said.
Still, was there not one contrarian voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?
The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods — clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia — fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.
Despite little hard evidence, huh? Even Josef Stalin and Fidel Castro didn’t rack up vote totals of 19,605 to 0. Those totals constitute evidence in themselves.
What kind of other evidence could there be? The votes were completely skewed for the Democratic candidate, in a city run entirely by the Democrats, where virtually every official is a Democrat, and where the District Attorney, the man who’d have to investigate and prosecute allegations of Democratic voter fraud is himself an elected Democrat. This is a city where the Republicans had to go to court because the Republican poll watchers, which the party is allowed, by law, to have, were either denied entry or forcibly removed, and the Democrats didn’t even care about the law. From Breitbart:
The transcript:
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Election officials in Philadelphia’s 20th Ward, 1st Division attempted to prevent court-appointed Republican minority inspectors (regarding minority party) from doing their job to monitor elections.
GOP Inspector: These guys have a court order. They have to be able to sit here.
Dem Inspector: They not sitting here. They can sit in here, but they not sitting at this board. They not running this. I run this!
GOP Inspector: Well, they’re the minority inspectors, ma’am.
Dem Inspector: I don’t care. I don’t care!
GOP Inspector: That’s what the law says.
Dem Inspector: I don’t care what the law says, I say! I’m not turning them away… they aren’t sitting here at this board.
GOP Inspector: I’m going to call the legal division.
Dem Inspector: I don’t care, call ‘em!
It would have been better if they had recorded the name of the lovely-sounding woman on the tape.
The story about the unbelievable vote totals did not come from a conservatively-oriented site. The Philadelphia Inquirer at least attempts to portray itself as an objective journalistic source, abd, in fact, the editors endorsed and supported the re-election of President Obama. The story cannot (reasonably) be just dismissed.
However, while the total Democratic control over the City of Brotherly Love means that no charges will ever be brought against anyone, and no criminal investigation concerning whether and how the voting machines might have been tampered with, it actually is possible to build a prima facie case of voter fraud.
There were 59 voting districts in which Mitt Romney was recorded as having received zero votes. In Pennsylvania, the voter registration rolls are public information. What needs to be done is obvious:
- The voter registration rolls for the 59 districts need to be examined, to find out how many, if any, voters have registered as Republicans;
- The actual voting books from those 59 districts need to be examined to see how many of the registered Republicans in those 59 districts actually voted; and
- Those people registered as Republicans should be canvassed and asked for whom they voted.
In the districts in question, the Inquirer has noted that the population is very heavily black, and that blacks gave, nationwide, well over 90% of their votes to President Obama specifically, and Democrats in general. But black voters are not 100% Democratic, and black voters did not vote exclusively for President Obama. A sharp investigative team could easily discover whether any Republicans voted in those districts, and if any of them voted for Mitt Romney.
If you read the entire Inquirer article, you’ll see that they have done some of the research, and that Republicans really are rare in those districts. But it only takes one Republican found, who voted for Mitt Romney, in one of those 59 districts to prove that the reported vote totals are false. The Inquirer story said that they had checked some of the wards, but never stated that they had checked them all; sounds like a mission for Breitbart to me!
Here’s an excerpt from Selwyn Duke at The American Thinker November 13, 2012. Duke addresses apparent irregularities in many Philadelphia precincts and puts the issue of voter fraud in key states in the context of a national election. (emphasis added)
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/was_the_2012_election_stolen.html#ixzz2C7bFqP75
Rope, I’m not sure this stuff does us any good. Obama won too many states for this to be voter fraud alone. And the margins were too big. You can yell “Voter fraud” when it’s close, like Coleman v Franken in MN in 2008, but not when it’s hundreds of thousands of votes in Fla, VA, OH, Colorado, and elsewhere. It sounds too much like Perry, who still thinks Bush stole Ohio in 2004.
I don’t like this election. I don’t like it one bit. How does an empty suit like Obama get re-elected? Have trillion dollar deficits, 8% unemployment, and 4 dollar a gallon gas become “The New Normal?” But these stories don’t help. It’s all just too conspiratorial. It sounds like the whining of a sore loser. Indeed, it sounds like Perry and every other lib who can’t stand it when Republicans win, and look to blame anyone but themselves. Romney made some mistakes. He should have been more agressive on some issues. And he let the other guy define him first, usually the first mistake in campaigning. But Obama is stuck with the deficits, the debt, and the economy. He can’t blame Bush any more. If things stay stuck, or even get worse, it will all be on him.
Eric, your comment indicates you didn’t read Selwyn Duke’s article. Read it, or confirm you already did read it and I’ll respond.
I read the article, but have never heard of this person before. He makes a few points, but claiming the entire election was stolen is a stretch way too far, for the reasons I already gave. He sounds like a kook. We should not listen to kooks. If there were real evidence of the massive vote fraud he claims, every Republican operative from Karl Rove on down would be on it, and so would every pundit from Krauthammer to Limbaugh.
This grasping at straws drives me crazy. It’s like the Birther thing. Some people seriously thought they could get Obama thrown out of office over a birth certificate. This is loony tunes thinking. It’s a denial of reality. It’s an appeal to magic and wishful thinking. It’s pretending that the serious work of beating left wingers doesn’t have to be done, and that we can beat our enemies with conspiracy theories. This guy seriously claims the entire election was stolen, and somehow no one else in the Republican Party noticed but him.
Let’s deal in reality. Obama won this thing. I don’t know how, but he did. And it won’t get overturned based on one reporter or blogger or whoever he is.
BTW, Rope, sorry if my last two comments sounded harsh, but we just can’t get caught up in nonsense. Listen to sane heads like Charles Krauthammer.
Obama won this thing. I don’t know how, but he did
Really? I mean, really? You don’t know how? Despite everyone outside your wingnut bubble trying to tell you?
Jesus, you people are incredibly dense.
Bwahahahahahahahah.
I agree w/Eric. I agree that the 59 wards in Philly are highly suspicious and that some fraud very likely occurred, but there is a ridiculously small quantity of Republicans registered in those areas. And as such, based on what happened on Election Day there, they were probably scared for their lives to go out cast a vote for Romney.
Eric, Selwyn Duke is a retired tennis pro, now active in business, and a reasonably well known conservative writer on quite a few Internet sites. He’s a regular columnist at The New American, News With Views, and Renew America, and is a frequent contributor at The American Thinker with dozens of feature articles to his credit.
Which is to indicate that his work is easily accessible. That you are unfamiliar with him or with his work isn’t really important, just as who he is is also not important to the question of the influence of voter fraud in the outcome of the election.
Either voter fraud occurred or it didn’t. Duke provides several examples which point rather conclusively toward fraud. Surely you don’t dispute his examples, or do you? If so, say so, and I’ll address those issues.
Otherwise, it seems that for you lots of little frauds don’t add up to a big enough fraud to turn the election. Is that a fair statement?
PS: Krauthammer is a solid conservative voice and usually reliable and I’m almost always in agreement with his observations, but we’re different people and when we disagree I don’t feel the need to conform my thoughts to his, or to yours.
It is for me, FWIW.
Specific inferences drawn from apparently inconceiveable results, is an iffy proposition. But the investigation of supposedly substantiating instances does not seem to me to be pointless. Although I have a difficult time conceiving as to how the accumulate d effects could ahve swung this election.
That is where systematic research would be welcome.
We of course have on record numbers of Democrats publicly stating that they are perfectly willing to engage in the subversion of the democratic process in order to get what they want. We do also know that the Democrat party has a long and notorious history of metropolitan vote fraud and purchase. We know that the political careers of extremely influential Democrat politicians have been made through vote fraud and deceit: Lyndon Johnson’s election to the U.S. Senate is an instance remarked and noted by reliable and careful historians.
There is little or no reason to trust that a class of people (liberal Democrats) who have habituially acted in this way in the past, and promise to do so again in the future ‘if necessary’, are not doing so currently.
Philadelphia however, is an instance where close investigation involving actual leg work may have gone some way toward making the result there seem plausible in terms of rough proportionality, if not in actual numbers. I’m not sure that 19,000 government worshipping Philadelphians vibrating to the same frequency is any more remarkable than a cloud of gnats changing direction in midflight on a moment’s notice.
My considered opinion is that historically speaking, and based on the testimony of historians as to the effect on the election outcomes rather than the ensuing social effects, is that voter fraud has made this country very much more left leaning than it otherwise would be, and that we are living with the accumultaed effects of generations of democratic subversion by Democrats.
What is taken as the moral default position in this country is in fact partly the result of fraud and manipulation.
That is just one reason for not taking lefties seriously as moral peers and fellows, however seriously you must take them as threats or nuisances.
That’s about it. Your author alleges a few small frauds, but can’t conclusively prove any of them. And his overall conclusion, that the whole election was stolen, just doesn’t hold up. Given the final vote totals, that would have required massive fraud, hundreds of thousands of votes in several states, and no way could they get away with that without anyone noticing. Like I said, Karl Rove and others, not to mention Romney’s entire legal team, would have been on it in a second. This is a story which is, truth be told, going nowhere.
Am I the only one that finds this blog extremely slow loading, in a way other web sites are not?
DNW says:
November 14, 2012 at 14:31
Am I the only one that finds this blog extremely slow loading, in a way other web sites are not?
No, you are not alone. Painted a wall and it dried before it loaded. (well, maybe a little exaggeration.
)
Eric, if you use the link at the bottom of my comment to access Selwyn Duke’s original article you’ll find a number of links there which support his allegations. But if it’s going to take conclusive proof of voter fraud to get you to consider the possibility, then your opinion is unlikely to change.
On a related note, you might look into the case of Allen West, he’s fighting to get a recount. The Florida Secretary of State has sent a team of investigators to the district because a partial recount of early ballots resulted in an increase for West and an even bigger decline for his opponent. But not enough to trigger an automatic recount.
West is convinced fraud prevented him from winning reelection. But since he lost a bid to have the voting machines and their associated ballots impounded, he’s been effectively denied access to the hard evidence he needs to prove fraud. Now, he’s concerned with trying to get a full recount of early and absentee ballots.
What I mean is conclusive proof that massive voter fraud took place, enough to change the outcome in multiple states. He may be right that voter fraud occurred in small doses, but not nearly enough to change the election.
As for Allen West, he lost by a pretty small amount, which is different, so he may have a case.
Recounts are for Democrats only, according to Al Sharpton who has a firm opinion on Allen West’s drive for an accurate vote count, Al’s against recounts if one might put a Republican in office. Here’s an excerpt from The RightScoop dated 11/14/12.
(the percentage figures should be .8% and .5%. In Florida a recount is automatic if the margin of victory is within 1/2 of a percent of the total votes cast in the disputed race.)
Looks like a few others are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with Voter Fraud. The following list is from Michael at The American Dream on 11/13/12. (emphasis added)
It’s quiet a bit to digest but for those who think the topic might be important, it’s required reading, or soon will be. No single incident can prove voter fraud of sufficient magnitude to swing a national election, same with a limited number of isolated examples, or a great many examples in a circumscribed geographical area or specific region, but enough events in enough key locations can add up to turn a key state like Ohio for example.
Those who don’t think that’s a reasonable possibility and have already closed their minds to mounting evidence are of course under no obligation to read it or to give the issue further consideration. I intend to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
We’re at the early stages of marshaling the evidence and Obama’s supporters aren’t going to make it easy. This task is not for the everyone, but it does need doing if our nation is to return to government of, for, and by the people.
Sorry, but too much of this is anecdotal. He focuses a lot of effort on one polling place in Wisconsin where Chicago voters were allegedly bussed in. His evidence? Many of them were wearing Chicago Bears clothes. Sorry, but that’s not good enough. Chicago is close to Wisconsin, so you’d expect to see some Bears fans there. It may look fishy, but it’s just not proof.
But finally was his comment: Of course the Romney campaign has already totally given up. This makes no sense. Romney is a fighter and a tough competitor, he didn’t just “Give up” like a meek little mouse. If he had any chance at all to prove he lost the election because of fraud, he and his army of lawyers would be doing it. That they’re not means they know there’s no case to be made.
Like I said before, conservatives should stop grasping at these straws, they do us no good. The whole thing just smacks of desperation and wishful thinking. We won’t win this way, unfortunately it just makes us look like kooks, oddballs, complainers, and sore losers. And nobody wants to vote for that.
No, Eric, all Americans who care about the integrity of our election process should make a forthright effort to examine the evidence of voter fraud and come to their own conclusions about what to do in response.
Pretending it didn’t happen, or that if it did, it had little or no bearing on the eventual outcome is one response, but that’s not my response. Nor should those who’ve looked at the preliminary evidence and concluded that further examination is necessary be dissuaded by the opinions of those who’ve reached a different conclusion, or fear the implications of confirmation.
You say that Romney is a fighter and that he didn’t just Give Up like a meek little mouse. Maybe that’s so, maybe not, we’ll see, but prior to a thorough examination of the evidence, isn’t that exactly what you’re advocating? And, for what, fear of being called names?
WPTV News reports a hearing is now underway to decide if all the early ballots should be recounted in St. Lucie County. Stay tuned, tape at 6pm.
Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_st_lucie_county/allen-west-patrick-murphy-race-results-judge-to-hear-case-for-full-recount-of-all-early-votes#ixzz2CPWkAJ8F
My point is we’re not going to overturn this election on the basis of supposed voter fraud. Do you think Romney would just give up if he thought he had a case? Really? The West case is different because it was so close, but the national election wasn’t nearly as close. What is the point of barking up this tree when it won’t do any good?
Eric, why assume that overturning the election is the only useful result of exposing voter fraud? Granted, it is a much to be desired outcome, but so is pointing out the illegitimacy of the current regime, and bringing the cheaters to justice is also well worth the effort.
As for Romney just giving up, it wouldn’t be the first time a presidential candidate just gave up and decided not to press his case for a stolen election. Richard Nixon just gave up in 1960 when Chicago’s Mayor Daley waited late into the night to see how many votes it would take to win Illinois for JFK and then delivered the required margin of victory a few hours late to be sure, but not too late to put his fellow Democrat in the White House.
Incidentally, there is no national election. There’s a series of State elections each with it’s allotted number of votes in the Electoral College. Win the key precincts by wide margins in heavily populated urban districts by hook or by crook and the totals can easily tip statewide tallies. Put three or four State elections together, like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Colorado for example, and that’s more than enough to swing a national election in an otherwise closely matched contest.
You should already know this, but the point of barking up this particular tree is that if elections can be so brazenly stolen in 21st Century modern America then the voice of the people is meaningless, representative democracy is nothing but a sham, a fond memory of a lost past, and our nation has devolved from a republic into a tyranny.
George Bennett writing in the Palm Beach Post reports the following:
Stephen Dinan at The Washington Times reports the following, 11/17/12. West is currently behind by .58% of the total vote, he need to get within .50% to trigger a full recount of all ballots, early, absentee, and election day votes.
His request to have the voting machines and their associated ballots impounded was denied. Then when he requested a recount of early ballots after significient reports of double counts of his opponent’s ballots and non-counts of his ballots emerged, the canvassing board ordered a full recount of early ballots.
But, then a strange development took place over the weekend, (following is the last paragraph from the comment immediately above.)
—The canvassing board originally planned a full recount of early votes after some were double-counted and others were ignored on election night. But after announcing the full recount late Saturday, the board reversed course Sunday morning and decided to only recount 16,275 ballots from three of the eight days of early voting….
Now, it seems the canvassing board (by a vote of 2-1) has decided to remedy their earlier blatantly biased decision.
Read more: West wins request for recount of some ballots – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/17/west-wins-request-recount-some-ballots/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2CUBxDUO1
It’s fine to expose voter fraud, and even prosecute it if you can, but let’s not let it distract from the bigger issues, namely, how do we beat these left wingers in the future? To say we lost this election because of voter fraud is not a viable strategy. We need to find out why we really lost, and then do something about it.