Rigging the Election

[candycorn]

Henry Kissinger once said the best way to deal with a big problem is to get out in front of it before the news breaks. The news media has a big problem on its hands because Hillary is losing big and they know it.

The following news story is a classic example of Henry's crafty strategy. Before Clinton's rigged election numbers roll in the New York Post has already written a story to explain how she won by a landslide. According to the New York Post Americans are going to vote in record numbers for a President we don't like, don't trust and don't want. After she "wins" the election, poor Hillary will be without the comparison of Trump. Pass the Kleenex box please.

I'm truly amazed that the media believes that the American people are going to buy their story much less vote for "their candidate." According to their logic, 77% - 80% of American voters who do not want Hillary Clinton are going to vote for her anyway.

Americans are about to get the first landslide president we don’t want | New York Post
An astonishing (but kinda not really) NBC News/Survey Monkey poll released this week has her winning the presidential race by 9 points, even though just 42 percent of voters said Clinton has the personality and temperament to serve, just 23 percent agreed that she “cares about people like you,” just 20 percent said she shared their values, and only 11 percent said she is honest and trustworthy.

Your average IRS auditor/ambulance chaser who moonlights as a used-car salesman enjoys better numbers. Unfortunately for Clinton, as of Nov. 9, she will no longer enjoy the benefit of comparison with Trump. Americans are about to get the first landslide president we didn’t want. - end quote

This is no surprise that they compare Hillary Clinton's numbers to less than an IRS auditor/ambulance chaser who moonlights as a used-car salesman. Here is a visual aid for those who just can't seem to "get the picture."

The average number of Clinton supporters at her rallies have been estimated at 200 people or less. Trump has been consistently drawing tens of thousands of supporters in city after city after city while TV Networks avoid showing the pictures that reveal just how powerful turnout for Trump has been. How else can the media predict a landslide victory without avoiding such photos of Trump rallies, falsifying poll numbers and cutting off Julian Assange's internet service? Desperate people are known to do desperate things.

There is an online poll which reveals Trump receiving more than double the votes Hillary received. The poll name is entitled, "Vote for the President." You can vote with your email and they list 4 candidates on the poll.

Poll Results - Vote for the President

Vote for Trump, Clinton, Stein, or Johnson. This is by far the most accurate and believable poll I have seen to date. I can believe these numbers because they make sense given the huge turnout we see for Donald Trump across the United States and the level of disgust the American people feel for Hillary Clinton. What the New York Post and the rest of the liberal media is trying to sell does not make any sense at all.

The Liberal media machine rigging poll numbers for Hillary will not help her come election day. So what is the Clinton Campaign doing this time to rig the election?

Veritas reports:

Warning - Graphic Language


Warning - Graphic Language



I find it interesting that Chris Wallace asked Mr. Trump if he would accept the election results while not asking Mrs. Clinton the same question. I also found it interesting that these Democratic operatives openly boast on camera about achieving voter fraud on a massive scale and admit this is how they have been winning elections for the past 50 years while the media continues to insist that voter fraud is a myth. How sad. I'm told that the Clinton's have never been able to win elections without resorting to such criminal activities and this alone should be reason enough for the American people to not accept a Clinton win should it be announced.

Rigging the election is not winning.
Rigging the election is a a crime against the American people.
Hasn't she committed enough crimes against the American people already?
Volunteer to be a Trump Election Observer & Stop Hillary from rigging the election.

I appreciate your extensive if not well thought out editorial. On one hand you seem to be stating that the size of the crowds proves scientific polling to be false. On the other, you seem to be stating that voter fraud would be employed on a wide scale by the Democratic Party according to what I’m sure you’d even admit are highly edited videos manufactured by a person whose ethics have been called into question in the past and who has even had court orders to pay for damages his videos have done.

James O’Keefe Pays $100K Settlement after Deceiving Public about ACORN (and ALEC Helped Take Down ACORN)

The obvious question is why you would go through the trouble of paying/engendering/facilitating (choose your verb) the press to report poll numbers when you have the fix at the ballot box?

Moving on to the canard that crowd size equals polling. For one thing, it is only in 10-15 states where candidates are holding rallies. So in 35-40 states, there are no crowds for either one. In Nationwide polling the most populous states are included and there are no pictures of rallies there. In general, those states (CA, NY, IL, PA, WI, VA, MD, NJ, MA) are firmly in Ms. Clinton’s column. Secondly, there is strong precedent for rallies not translating into polling or votes.

Governor Romney drew large crowds as well. The result? Resounding and total defeat. But, if you’re like others here, you will argue that election was also “rigged” (as Trump said in a tweet when it happened)

Mitt drawing larger crowds


View attachment 94746

Although later he did blame Romney. Imagine the meltdown that will happen when he loses.

Those in the “its rigged” camp never explain how it would be rigged. In the absence of explaining specifically how the Democrats can rig elections during Presidential years but amazingly forget how to in off year contests…we will apply some logic. Lets dispense with some guy with a laptop somewhere doing the Matthew Broderick thing and changing the grades via computer. Again, if it were that easy, you could do this for every election, you could save a bundle of money in travel and advertising… The other (much easier) way to commit voter fraud is to simply have a bunch of folks register in a state (or states) where they don’t live and vote in several localities. Its easy and effective since getting a false ID is cake and getting someone to vouch for your address if there is an investigation (which there won’t be). Could it happen? Sure. Would it be VERY easy to pull off? Yes. And it’s pretty cheap.

Is it happening here? No. Why? Well, because if you are going to put in, lets say, 10,000 plants into Trump territories of, lets say FL or OH (Northern Florida and Southern Ohio), those 10,000 will be voting for every democrat on the ticket or a straight Party vote. It makes no sense to cast a ballot for Ms. Clinton but not vote for Mr. Portman or Mr. Rubio’s opponent. So if there is a split between the Presidential and the Senatorial selections, there is not a fix in place. It’s more complex because the appeal of the candidate usually transcended House Districts abut one could look at them also. If Ms. Clinton wanted to rig, for example, NC; it would be smartest to put the plants into a district the GOP currently controls like the NC2 (where there is not an incumbent).

If you wish to explain how the “rigging” works, feel free. So far, it’s a bunch of anecdotes that are easily dismissed. Crowd size is not important at all.

Candy, your response is almost as long as my Op-ed. This tells me that you're worried. You should be if you're expecting Americans to believe that Clinton is anywhere close to Donald Trump in this race.

Clinton is drawing crowds of 200 or less in small auditoriums (like schools). Donald Trump is consistently drawing tens of thousands of people filling huge arenas. If you will recall, Obama drew huge crowds during his first election and had I told you then that those huge crowds meant nothing you would have balked at the idea.

Now that your candidate had to hire "actors" on Craigslist to fill her own DNC Convention for nomination with possibly more Democrats (Sanders voters) protesting against her outside than Democrats for her inside (minus the paid actors) and the media doing its best to hide just how small Clinton rallies actually have been, you want us to believe that crowds don't matter. I have news for you, Candy. Huge Crowds represent Huge voter turnout. Small crowds and a half empty DNC nomination convention represent a Party that is no longer with you.

And I demonstrated where Mitt Romney got larger crowds than Mr. Trump. He lost in a landslide losing 10 of the 11 states that were in competition.

The funny thing about large crowds is this. Trump is a comedian; an entertainer. Only the most child-like among us believe that he has any political chops. Mexico will not pay for the wall that will never be built. The acquisition of land alone would be cost prohibitive and likely time consequential toward any approval Congress may have granted (meaning that it would span the 2018 election if enacted before then and the new Congress can fund/not fund it. The “round up” of brown skinned people only appeals to the sad folks who believe your worth is dictated by your skin color.

He has no political leg to stand on. Its entertainment. If I had to choose to go to a HRC event or a Trump event, I may well go to the Trump event too. It’s fun…

Unfortunately, where you woefully miss the point is that voters take this seriously. He doesn’t. The people at the Trump rallies, by and large, do not. Many (like his kids) didn’t even know how to register to vote for him. Many are probably too bent out of shape that they may be called for Jury Duty if they registered to vote.

Persons at events do not equal votes. Sorry to spoil your fantasy.

Clinton is the most unelectable candidate in US History. Even her own Party doesn't want her. Your mistake was believing the DNC could pull this over on the American people - taking the nomination away from Sanders (who won) because Hillary believed it was "her turn."

Sanders did not win anything of the sort. You’re simply spitballing with that moronic comment.

Tell your candidate that becoming president of the USA is not an entitlement -which she has come to expect - but rather a privilege - which she does not deserve.

I’m sure Ms. Clinton will be unavailable for the next 8 years.

————

You mentioned my “being worried”. I giggle at the suggestion. The reason? Trump is on his 4th campaign manager and she seems to know less about running a campaign than the average Jr. High School class president. Here is his itinerary for the next few days:

He is losing badly in PA and doing even worse in VA. Yet he is still spending time there (even though his ad buys were cancelled???).
Before this he was in ME and NH. He won’t win there either.

Politics is a profession; best left to the professionals. With amateurs running the campaign and an amateur candidate, I knew it was over when Kasich bowed out. The only mystery is the margin and if HRC would “step in it” as she could do at any moment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dr. Norpoth's 'scientific' model is inaccurate as well be realized on the 8th.

Please don't leave the Board, Mrs. M.

 

[JQPublic1]

While it is true that a person could create a new email and vote again, you might wonder why the Democrats haven't gone to the trouble to do it. I'll tell you why I believe they haven't. Most of them didn't bothered to get into a car and drive to her DNC Nomination. Most of them didn't bother to show up at her rallies. Why would they bother to create new emails to vote more than once? It's a sign of consistency. They are just not that enthusiastic about a Clinton presidency which is why many of them have already changed their vote to Trump. Trump has more than twice the votes Hillary Clinton has. That's the reality you'll have to face eventually. What the liberal media has created is an illusion. It's nothing more than a mirage meant to ease the shock of a landslide victory for Clinton (the devil always overplays his hand).

Democrats aren't as crooked as Republicans. And most are smart enough to know online polls don't amount to a hill of beans. Democrats don't need them. CNN does the job of unofficial polling quite nicely and, thus far, their polls have favored Hillary.

But although SNAP polls and rallies are two different animals, neither accurately measure or predict the outcomes of presidential races. If you have been a GOPer all along, you haven't learned from the last election. Romney had huge rallies much larger than those of Obama. Were you in a coma when Romney lost?

Trump: With crowds like these, how come we’re not winning? - Hot Air

The problem with counting crowd size is that it’s not data as much as anecdotes. Romney drew tens of thousands to a rally in Hillsborough County, Florida in the last week of the campaign, and lost the key I-4 Corridor county by almost seven points and 36,000 votes. In the same time frame, Romney packed Red Rocks Canyon in Colorado and “turned [the] interstate into a parking lot,” as one Twitter follower recalled, only to lose the state days later by five points and 137,000 votes.

Big rallies in themselves have almost no predictive value to electoral results, and perhaps especially so when the campaign is almost entirely oriented to big rallies. As I discussed in my book Going Red, the Romney campaign relied heavily on national ad campaigns and rallies, and didn’t build an effective ground campaign to connect to voters in these key communities. Republicans lost two presidential elections with that strategy, one of which was winnable, so doubling down on the fallacy that big rally attendance augurs electoral success should make the GOP very, very nervous.

Hold that thought. I'm working on a story which will remove all doubt that Trump is predicted win. To be exact there is a proven 87% - 99% CERTAINTY that Trump will be the next president of the United States. This information was gathered and scientifically studied by an expert in the field who has correctly predicted presidential races since 1996. Stay tuned. I'll post the link here for you in case you miss it. Thank you for your comment.

Here you are JQ Public 1 :

87% - 99% Certain of Trump Presidency - Prof. Helmut Norpoth

Norpoth isn' t the first political soothsayer we've seen. In August of 2012 ,the University of Colorado had been predicting electoral college selections of presidents since 1980. In 2012 their mathematical channeling conjured up a loss when their chosen man, Romney, lost.

I am not sorry to tell you that Norpoth is about to join the University of Colorado soothsayers in obscurity after he too falls flat on his face after Hillary sails to victory.

Trying to defy the scientific evidence of Dr. Norpoth's primary model is like trying to defy the laws of gravity. What goes up must come down and there are no exceptions. Not even for Mrs. Clinton.

Heh heh heh! Using an outdated mathematical formulae to predict political outcomes is unwise, M'am. Norpoth didn't control for changing demographics and the misogynist Trump factor. The most prominent element of all in Trump's impending defeat is in-alienation of every one except RW extremists wishing for a return to the 1950s. A new, updated mathematical model ..specific to Donald Trump, needs to be calculated. His campaign rhetoric has skewed the math used by Norpoth.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If Trump wins, I'll leave. Pray hard. God answers prayer, Jake.

I'd rather you didn't.

*****SMILE*****