Now the evidence is released. ObamaCare passed due to illegal voters voting in 2008.

[XPostFacto]

Yeah, I notice every time now whenever there is a recount for a close election, the democrats seems to always come up with the correct number of votes to win. It comes off to me as rather fishy. I always believed Al Franken stole that election.

They were close to giving it to Gore, which is why they started off hating Bush so much. They stole the election from Dino Rossi here in WA for the gubernatorial race. He won. They had a recount. He won that. Then the ACORN people tossed in the number they needed with illegal votes set aside into the mix and came up with a 100+ count advantage, the closest margin in our history, maybe in the US. They took over so much that no Republican has had a chance to gain a foothold since.

That is what has happened here in Virginia. We used to always be a red state, but no more. I always say it's those damn yankees from NY, NJ, Del, Pa, and the New England states, who moved down south just to enjoy a tax break. Unfortunately, they brought their leftist voting habits with them. We are seeing an influx of Mexicans coming down our way, too. I haven't seen any at my voting precinct, yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if Jose doesn't sidle up to the table and present all his "legal" documentation.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Voter fraud. What voter fraud? Oh, that voter fraud.

From the Washington Post:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.​

Hmmm ... 339 non-citizens out of 32,800 poll respondents is 1.03%. 6.4% (whom the blogger guestimates may have actually voted) of that is 0.07%. Obama beat McCain 2,142,651 to 2,128,474 in North Carolina. Using the guestimates from this blogger would mean Obama received 2,260 votes from non-citizens compared to McCain's 565 votes; or a net gain for Obama of 1,695 votes ... nowhere near enough for McCain to have won North Carolina. Not to mention, Obama still would have easily won the election even had McCain won North Carolina. For a race to be affected by this, it would need to be a razor thin election, like the Franken/Coleman example.

Your analysis is wrong. The non-citizens proportion of the US is not 1%. Below is what you should be focusing on:

More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote
​

This is what you're looking for:

In 2009, 22 million people in the United States were noncitizens in one of three categories: legal permanent residents on the path to U.S. citizenship, legal temporary residents here for a limited time, and people here without authorization. (Authorized visitors, such as tourists, are not counted in the foreign-born population.)
​

Of those 22 million non-citizens, 14% are registered to vote, 3,080,000 non-citizen potential voters ready to cast a ballot.

Now you need to isolate those who vote from those who are merely registered to vote:

Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008
​

Back to the 22 million non-citizens and 6.4% of them ACTUALLY VOTED, so 1,408,000 non-citizens voted in 2008.

 

[Faun]

Voter fraud. What voter fraud? Oh, that voter fraud.

From the Washington Post:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.​

Hmmm ... 339 non-citizens out of 32,800 poll respondents is 1.03%. 6.4% (whom the blogger guestimates may have actually voted) of that is 0.07%. Obama beat McCain 2,142,651 to 2,128,474 in North Carolina. Using the guestimates from this blogger would mean Obama received 2,260 votes from non-citizens compared to McCain's 565 votes; or a net gain for Obama of 1,695 votes ... nowhere near enough for McCain to have won North Carolina. Not to mention, Obama still would have easily won the election even had McCain won North Carolina. For a race to be affected by this, it would need to be a razor thin election, like the Franken/Coleman example.

NC doesn't have that many electoral votes, but how would things have turned out had the states of contention been Florida, Ohio, or California?

Obama could have lost any one of those states and he still would have won the election. Look, I'm not saying this isn't a problem. It's a problem which can be easily fixed if election registrars would do their job.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Voter fraud. What voter fraud? Oh, that voter fraud.

From the Washington Post:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.​

Hmmm ... 339 non-citizens out of 32,800 poll respondents is 1.03%. 6.4% (whom the blogger guestimates may have actually voted) of that is 0.07%. Obama beat McCain 2,142,651 to 2,128,474 in North Carolina. Using the guestimates from this blogger would mean Obama received 2,260 votes from non-citizens compared to McCain's 565 votes; or a net gain for Obama of 1,695 votes ... nowhere near enough for McCain to have won North Carolina. Not to mention, Obama still would have easily won the election even had McCain won North Carolina. For a race to be affected by this, it would need to be a razor thin election, like the Franken/Coleman example.

NC doesn't have that many electoral votes, but how would things have turned out had the states of contention been Florida, Ohio, or California?

Obama could have lost any one of those states and he still would have won the election. Look, I'm not saying this isn't a problem. It's a problem which can be easily fixed if election registrars would do their job.

I'm not arguing that Obama's election would have turned, the evidence here shows that ObamaCare passed ONLY because of the voting of non-citizens who put Franken into office. His was the crucial 60th vote. It's Franken who shouldn't be in office.

 

[Faun]

Voter fraud. What voter fraud? Oh, that voter fraud.

From the Washington Post:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.​

Hmmm ... 339 non-citizens out of 32,800 poll respondents is 1.03%. 6.4% (whom the blogger guestimates may have actually voted) of that is 0.07%. Obama beat McCain 2,142,651 to 2,128,474 in North Carolina. Using the guestimates from this blogger would mean Obama received 2,260 votes from non-citizens compared to McCain's 565 votes; or a net gain for Obama of 1,695 votes ... nowhere near enough for McCain to have won North Carolina. Not to mention, Obama still would have easily won the election even had McCain won North Carolina. For a race to be affected by this, it would need to be a razor thin election, like the Franken/Coleman example.

Your analysis is wrong. The non-citizens proportion of the US is not 1%. Below is what you should be focusing on:

More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote
​

This is what you're looking for:

In 2009, 22 million people in the United States were noncitizens in one of three categories: legal permanent residents on the path to U.S. citizenship, legal temporary residents here for a limited time, and people here without authorization. (Authorized visitors, such as tourists, are not counted in the foreign-born population.)
​

Of those 22 million non-citizens, 14% are registered to vote, 3,080,000 non-citizen potential voters ready to cast a ballot.

Now you need to isolate those who vote from those who are merely registered to vote:

Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008
​

Back to the 22 million non-citizens and 6.4% of them ACTUALLY VOTED, so 1,408,000 non-citizens voted in 2008.

Now you're deviating from the poll, which is what the blogger who came up with those numbers, used. According to the poll, 1.03% identified themselves as non-citizens. The blogger than used respondent data from that poll to determine that 14% of them were registered and that 6.4% of the 1.03% non-citizens voted.

 

[Faun]

Voter fraud. What voter fraud? Oh, that voter fraud.

From the Washington Post:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.​

Hmmm ... 339 non-citizens out of 32,800 poll respondents is 1.03%. 6.4% (whom the blogger guestimates may have actually voted) of that is 0.07%. Obama beat McCain 2,142,651 to 2,128,474 in North Carolina. Using the guestimates from this blogger would mean Obama received 2,260 votes from non-citizens compared to McCain's 565 votes; or a net gain for Obama of 1,695 votes ... nowhere near enough for McCain to have won North Carolina. Not to mention, Obama still would have easily won the election even had McCain won North Carolina. For a race to be affected by this, it would need to be a razor thin election, like the Franken/Coleman example.

NC doesn't have that many electoral votes, but how would things have turned out had the states of contention been Florida, Ohio, or California?

Obama could have lost any one of those states and he still would have won the election. Look, I'm not saying this isn't a problem. It's a problem which can be easily fixed if election registrars would do their job.

I'm not arguing that Obama's election would have turned, the evidence here shows that ObamaCare passed ONLY because of the voting of non-citizens who put Franken into office. His was the crucial 60th vote. It's Franken who shouldn't be in office.

No, it doesn't show that either.

 

[Rikurzhen]

According to the poll, 1.03% identified themselves as non-citizens. The blogger than used respondent data from that poll to determine that 14% of them were registered and that 6.4% of the 1.03% non-citizens voted.

That 1.03% represents non-citizens in that poll, not in the US. The Census figure I gave you represents the entire US population.

 

[Faun]

According to the poll, 1.03% identified themselves as non-citizens. The blogger than used respondent data from that poll to determine that 14% of them were registered and that 6.4% of the 1.03% non-citizens voted.

That 1.03% represents non-citizens in that poll, not in the US. The Census figure I gave you represents the entire US population.

But the 6.4% figure comes from the poll. So if that 1.03% figure is skewed because polls can skew data, than so is the 6.4% figure. You're mixing and match data now. You're taking one from an apparently skewed poll and then applying it to another poll (census data).

 

[Rikurzhen]

According to the poll, 1.03% identified themselves as non-citizens. The blogger than used respondent data from that poll to determine that 14% of them were registered and that 6.4% of the 1.03% non-citizens voted.

That 1.03% represents non-citizens in that poll, not in the US. The Census figure I gave you represents the entire US population.

But the 6.4% figure comes from the poll. So if that 1.03% figure is skewed because polls can skew data, than so is the 6.4% figure. You're mixing and match data now. You're taking one from an apparently skewed poll and then applying it to another poll (census data).

No. The researchers found that their sample had captured some non-citizens and then they found that some of those non-citizens reported that they were registered to vote and some had even admitted to a felony, that they had voted in 2008 and in 2010. That kind of data is gold and it was a serendipitous find.

So that 1.03% figure represents non-citizens who were captured by the poll. That's accurate for the poll. The Census data is more accurate for the ENTIRE US population. The 6.4% is accurate for the non-citizens in the poll.

 

[Faun]

According to the poll, 1.03% identified themselves as non-citizens. The blogger than used respondent data from that poll to determine that 14% of them were registered and that 6.4% of the 1.03% non-citizens voted.

That 1.03% represents non-citizens in that poll, not in the US. The Census figure I gave you represents the entire US population.

But the 6.4% figure comes from the poll. So if that 1.03% figure is skewed because polls can skew data, than so is the 6.4% figure. You're mixing and match data now. You're taking one from an apparently skewed poll and then applying it to another poll (census data).

No. The researchers found that their sample had captured some non-citizens and then they found that some of those non-citizens reported that they were registered to vote and some had even admitted to a felony, that they had voted in 2008 and in 2010. That kind of data is gold and it was a serendipitous find.

So that 1.03% figure represents non-citizens who were captured by the poll. That's accurate for the poll. The Census data is more accurate for the ENTIRE US population. The 6.4% is accurate for the non-citizens in the poll.

Sounds like you're in agreement with me ... that 6.4% has no bearing on the census figures.

 

[Rikurzhen]

According to the poll, 1.03% identified themselves as non-citizens. The blogger than used respondent data from that poll to determine that 14% of them were registered and that 6.4% of the 1.03% non-citizens voted.

That 1.03% represents non-citizens in that poll, not in the US. The Census figure I gave you represents the entire US population.

But the 6.4% figure comes from the poll. So if that 1.03% figure is skewed because polls can skew data, than so is the 6.4% figure. You're mixing and match data now. You're taking one from an apparently skewed poll and then applying it to another poll (census data).

No. The researchers found that their sample had captured some non-citizens and then they found that some of those non-citizens reported that they were registered to vote and some had even admitted to a felony, that they had voted in 2008 and in 2010. That kind of data is gold and it was a serendipitous find.

So that 1.03% figure represents non-citizens who were captured by the poll. That's accurate for the poll. The Census data is more accurate for the ENTIRE US population. The 6.4% is accurate for the non-citizens in the poll.

Sounds like you're in agreement with me ... that 6.4% has no bearing on the census figures.

I tried to have an intelligent discussion with you but now I realize who you are. Sorry for my mistake.

 

[Faun]

According to the poll, 1.03% identified themselves as non-citizens. The blogger than used respondent data from that poll to determine that 14% of them were registered and that 6.4% of the 1.03% non-citizens voted.

That 1.03% represents non-citizens in that poll, not in the US. The Census figure I gave you represents the entire US population.

But the 6.4% figure comes from the poll. So if that 1.03% figure is skewed because polls can skew data, than so is the 6.4% figure. You're mixing and match data now. You're taking one from an apparently skewed poll and then applying it to another poll (census data).

No. The researchers found that their sample had captured some non-citizens and then they found that some of those non-citizens reported that they were registered to vote and some had even admitted to a felony, that they had voted in 2008 and in 2010. That kind of data is gold and it was a serendipitous find.

So that 1.03% figure represents non-citizens who were captured by the poll. That's accurate for the poll. The Census data is more accurate for the ENTIRE US population. The 6.4% is accurate for the non-citizens in the poll.

Sounds like you're in agreement with me ... that 6.4% has no bearing on the census figures.

I tried to have an intelligent discussion with you but now I realize who you are. Sorry for my mistake.

How can you have an intelligent discussion with anyone when you post a flawed poll and then try to apply the flawed results to census data? Even worse, you tried to extrapolate results from that flawed data to falsely claim that cost Coleman the election when the blogger you linked to didn't even assert that conclusion. You may now continue running away. Thanks for playing!

 

[mamooth]

If Rik is already rolling out excuses for losing, then the Republicans clearly aren't confident about the upcoming election.

 

[skye]

more food for thought ...


October 24 - 2014

Could non-citizens decide the November election - The Washington Post

 

[AmericanFirst]

Obamacare/ACA is a bill, passed by Congress and signed into law by the POTUS.

Pushed through illegally with no repub voting, yeah I would be proud of that.

Illegally?

Sorry, but a law is still a law even if one party folded their arms and refused to support it. You guys need to stop whining about it. It's beyond pathetic at this point

Voted on behind closed doors and not allowing the republican vote is not exactly the republicans refusing, but then you idiot libtards will twist whatever truth to benefit your stupid agenda. Oh by the way, every time I look at obutthurtcare I find it to be the disaster we thought. Obutthurt lied, period!!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

Are the Pubs still looking for excuses for why they lost? The answer is simple; they're out of step with 21st century America. Here's a clue. We aren't going back to to the 19th. Get used to it.

Yes, the margins of victory were always too large to account for cheating alone there must be another explanation like republicans want to do very harmful things to punish America for not letting them hold power.

Two examples were given where what you just posted is not true and there are only 15 posts since the OP.

What the hell is "true" to you people who just cannot accept that America voted for and elected a black guy with a funny name to be president of the United States? That shit must really stick in your craw and all I can say is: Keep searching, that smoking gun that makes all your conspiracy theories true must be out there somewhere. Or better yet I'll just say what all you people said to us when there were real questions about widespread vote counting procedures during the Bush years: Get over it.

The subhuman species known as crackercainous who primarily reside in a backward ignorant area of America known as jesusland have be foaming at the mouth since Barrack Hussein Obama was elected and Re-elected

Hey bigot, that would be like the apes coming out of the ghettos and putting their crack pipes down long enough to vote for the crack head in chief multiple times right?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Obamacare/ACA is a bill, passed by Congress and signed into law by the POTUS.

Obamacare care is a reengineered House bill having nothing to do with Obamacare and passed by a Senate whose majority leader, Harry Reid, refused to seat Scott Brown in time for the vote. Brown's vote would have broke the tie and killed Obamacare in its tracks.

Damn straight, most blatant example of ignoring the will of the people in decades.

Bills aren't crafted for the will of the people. The ACA is law. Get over it.

A stupid law intended for nothing more than income for the Feds. Everything about it is a lie.

 

[BULLDOG]

Voter fraud. What voter fraud? Oh, that voter fraud.

From the Washington Post:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.​

Hmmm ... 339 non-citizens out of 32,800 poll respondents is 1.03%. 6.4% (whom the blogger guestimates may have actually voted) of that is 0.07%. Obama beat McCain 2,142,651 to 2,128,474 in North Carolina. Using the guestimates from this blogger would mean Obama received 2,260 votes from non-citizens compared to McCain's 565 votes; or a net gain for Obama of 1,695 votes ... nowhere near enough for McCain to have won North Carolina. Not to mention, Obama still would have easily won the election even had McCain won North Carolina. For a race to be affected by this, it would need to be a razor thin election, like the Franken/Coleman example.

NC doesn't have that many electoral votes, but how would things have turned out had the states of contention been Florida, Ohio, or California?

Obama could have lost any one of those states and he still would have won the election. Look, I'm not saying this isn't a problem. It's a problem which can be easily fixed if election registrars would do their job.

I'm not arguing that Obama's election would have turned, the evidence here shows that ObamaCare passed ONLY because of the voting of non-citizens who put Franken into office. His was the crucial 60th vote. It's Franken who shouldn't be in office.

So you are giving Franken credit for passing Obamacare? He should use that for his next reelection campaign. Thanks Obama and Al for helping me get insurance at a reasonable price that I couldn't get before for any price, because of a preexisting heart condition. I would have died without my cardiologist.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I seen an article that stated the Washington post conducted a study and found that illegal voting actually changed the outcome of some elections. Of course libtards will deny it. Haven't figured out how to link from phone yet

 

[Care4all]

Voter fraud. What voter fraud? Oh, that voter fraud.

From the Washington Post:

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.​

Jebus.....

you sure require such a low level to non existent level of Proof....

There is NO EVIDENCE being shown in your article, it is merely speculation....

and a FALSE ONE at that....on saying Obamacare would not have passed if it weren't for Al Franken's 60th vote yahdahdahdahdah.....

So who did cast the critical 60th vote for the Affordable Care Act, a k a “Obamacare”?

Facing a new election year, the GOP has an answer ready to go: U.S. Sen. Al Franken, the Minnesota Democrat whose 2008 recount victory over Republican Norm Coleman helped alter the balance of power in national politics.

With the rocky rollout of healthcare.gov, Minnesotans can expect to hear a lot about the symbolic 60th vote; for example, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann recently penned an opinion piece calling Franken “a leading cheerleader and the 60th vote for Obamacare.”

But in a body of 100 senators, Franken is hardly the only contender for the distinction. Not to mention that in the end, the essential finishing touches of the health care law passed the Senate — thanks to some... legislative maneuvering — with a mere 56 votes, not 60.

edit
LINK
Did Al Franken really cast the 60th vote for Obamacare Star Tribune

so, NO, this speculation does not show any evidence that illegal voters changed the outcome of the elections,

and NO, the results of these races, even if reversed, would not have stopped Obamacare from passing, they only needed 56 votes to break the filibuster