Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Here's Politifact whitewashing Obama taking 100% in districts in OH and PA.
Emails, blog posts claim Mitt Romney got zero votes in some Greater Cleveland precincts | PolitiFact Ohio
The truth is it is statistically impossible for Obama, or anyone, to receive 100% of the vote. Mere error would suggest Romney would get one or two votes.
There was ample evidence of voter fraud but since it was committed in black districts the Justice Dept won't investigate.
Or if you are black and live in Cleveland, there's no way you would vote for a member of a Racist Cult who says stuff like '47% of you are moochers" and "I like to fire people".
It's like finding out that none of the Chickens voted for Colonel Sanders.
Here's Politifact whitewashing Obama taking 100% in districts in OH and PA.
Emails, blog posts claim Mitt Romney got zero votes in some Greater Cleveland precincts | PolitiFact Ohio
The truth is it is statistically impossible for Obama, or anyone, to receive 100% of the vote. Mere error would suggest Romney would get one or two votes.
There was ample evidence of voter fraud but since it was committed in black districts the Justice Dept won't investigate.
Or if you are black and live in Cleveland, there's no way you would vote for a member of a Racist Cult who says stuff like '47% of you are moochers" and "I like to fire people".
It's like finding out that none of the Chickens voted for Colonel Sanders.
Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
Either way it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney.
It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.Or if you are black and live in Cleveland, there's no way you would vote for a member of a Racist Cult who says stuff like '47% of you are moochers" and "I like to fire people".
It's like finding out that none of the Chickens voted for Colonel Sanders.
Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
Either way it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney.
No it isn't
Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
Either way it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney.
No it isn't
Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
Ben Carson? Really? He's got a record of saying some completely ignorant shit, but other than that, nothing. The GOP are really scraping the bottom of the shit barrel, trying to find a lucky penny. All they're coming up with is shit.
Paul, Carson Are Now Hillary?s Closest GOP Challengers - Rasmussen Reports?
Release date: June 23, 2014
1,000 LV, MoE = +/-3.0
Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Rand Paul (R): 39
margin: Clinton +7
Hillary Clinton (D): 46
Ben Carson (R): 38
margin: Clinton +8
Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Marco Rubio (R): 36
margin: Clinton +11
Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Ted Cruz (R): 37
margin: Clinton +13
Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Chris Christie(R): 33
margin: Clinton +14
Hillary Clinton (D): 50
Rick Perry (R): 36
margin: Clinton +14
From an earlier Rasmussen poll (03/06/2014):
Hillary Clinton (D): 47
Jeb Bush (R): 33
margin: Clinton +14
What to take away from this?
Well, it's just one poll, and that is indeed true. So, I won't try to read the future from it, but Rasmussen is anything but a Democratic-friendly outfit.
It is also the very first Rasmussen poll to pit Clinton against a large field of candidates all at once. So, in many ways, this is like the starting-shot for 2016 for Rasmussen. We can start to build a baseline for Rasmussen based on these results as the next two years unfold.
Facts:
Of the six results from this poll, Hillary wins every match-up, from between +7 and +14 over her prospective GOP challengers. Average: Clinton +11.17%. In two of those match-ups, she wins with an upper-single-digit margin. In the other four match-ups, she wins with landslide double-digit margins and hits the 50-mark twice. This is the first Rasmussen poll ever since the founding of the company in 2003 where I have seen values like this for a Democratic candidate.
All of the margins are outside the MoE. In fact they are outside the MoE doubled as well.
In 2008, 2010 and in 2012, Rasmussen had a provable mathematical bias of +4 to the RIGHT, not to the left, so it is entirely possible that these margins are actually underplaying how strong Clinton actually is when compared to these names. This means that for the vast majority of their end polling, their predictions were at least 4 points off. Now, whether Rasmussen is still using the same methodology as before is anyone's guess, since Rasmussen is one of the only pollsters who refuses to release internals.
Also interesting is that, for the first time I am aware, Ben Carson was polled against Hillary Clinton and he had the second strongest showing, behind Rand Paul.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for the sake of historical accuracy, here is my analysis of the pollsters, post-2012:
Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?
You can see my analysis of Rasmussen there.
Of the 21 end-polls from Rasmussen, RAS was to the Right from between +2 and +10 in 15 of those end polls. It was to the Left by +1 to +6 in 5 of those polls, and absolutely nailed Pennsylvania with 0 mathematical bias. So, Rasmussen was off to the Right in 3/4 of it's end polling and the intensity of being off was much higher than for the 5 polls where it was off to the Left.
Rasmussen also miscalled 6 of the 12 battleground states. Mathematically, for all states combined, it's mathematical bias was +2.71 to the Right, but for the 12 battlegrounds, it was +4.50 to the Right. In national polling, Rasmussens final poll showed Romney 49 / Obama 48 and since Obama won by +4, this means that Rasmussen was off +5 to the Right in the national polling. No one can, with any credibility, accuse Rasmussen of having a Liberal bias in it's polling.
The point I am making here is that a +14 for Clinton over Perry, for instance, could actually be a +18 in reality.
Again, this is just one poll, but it really sticks out since it is from a very Right-Wing leaning pollster.
More updates on Rasmussen in the future...
It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.No it isn't
Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
No they wouldn't
For most residents in those black communities, a vote for Obama is the sole reason they are there. It is unlikely they would make a mistake
Note the word "most" in your post. You're already lying.It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.No it isn't
Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
No they wouldn't
For most residents in those black communities, a vote for Obama is the sole reason they are there. It is unlikely they would make a mistake
Note the word "most" in your post. You're already lying.It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
No they wouldn't
For most residents in those black communities, a vote for Obama is the sole reason they are there. It is unlikely they would make a mistake
I also note the racism in thinking that black residents in a city all think the same way.
Tsk tsk. Who are you to speak for all black people?
Who knows why you're posting that link again? It failed you the first time you posted it.I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.Since Faun wasn't able to find any of these in all the links he clicked on, I guess I'll have to post them.
THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports
Great, yet another link which doesn't show where Obama got 110% of the vote anywhere.
Just admit you're full of shit and move on. Actually, at this point, you don't have to admit it. It's pretty obvious.
Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
Imbecile...It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.Actually if you are black in those places there is some chance you are barely literate and will make a mistake casting a ballot.
There is also a better chance you look at what Democrats have done to the black community and think "there must be a better way."
Either way it is statistically impossible for there to be no votes for Romney.
No it isn't
Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
Imbecile...It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.No it isn't
Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
Opinion: In Some Utah Precincts, Obama Received No Votes | NBC Chicago
Sure, those would be folks voting for the Republican candidate, not the Democrat.Imbecile...It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.
Opinion: In Some Utah Precincts, Obama Received No Votes | NBC Chicago
I am sure you are smart enough to understand why those aren't equivalent.
Oh, wait.
Imbecile...It is statistically impossible. Just random mistakes would account for one or two votes.No it isn't
Nationwide, only 7% of blacks voted for Romney. What makes you think there can't be areas where no blacks voted for Romney against a black president?
Obama reportedly received 0 votes in some Utah precincts
Sure, those would be folks voting for the Republican candidate, not the Democrat.
I am sure you are smart enough to understand why those aren't equivalent.
Oh, wait.
Who knows why you're posting that link again? It failed you the first time you posted it.I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.Great, yet another link which doesn't show where Obama got 110% of the vote anywhere.
Just admit you're full of shit and move on. Actually, at this point, you don't have to admit it. It's pretty obvious.
Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
Let me remind you what you ignorantly claimed ... you said there were Democrat controlled districts where Obama received 110% of the vote. The link you now posted twice is about Wood county in Ohio, where as you've been shown, Obama received about half of all those who voted and about 30% of all registered voters in that county. Let me explain it to ya since you obviously struggle with numbers .... that ain't 110%.
Who knows why you're posting that link again? It failed you the first time you posted it.I posted examples of voter fraud, and apparently you missed this one.
Pundit Press: Good News: Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration
Let me remind you what you ignorantly claimed ... you said there were Democrat controlled districts where Obama received 110% of the vote. The link you now posted twice is about Wood county in Ohio, where as you've been shown, Obama received about half of all those who voted and about 30% of all registered voters in that county. Let me explain it to ya since you obviously struggle with numbers .... that ain't 110%.
You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% turnout in that county?
Hisses the forum jester who doesn't know the difference between a precinct and a district.Sure, those would be folks voting for the Republican candidate, not the Democrat.I am sure you are smart enough to understand why those aren't equivalent.
Oh, wait.
Yeah, all right I was right. You are not smart enough to see the difference between a district with 20 votes and a district with thousands of votes.
Hisses the forum jester who doesn't know the difference between a precinct and a district.Sure, those would be folks voting for the Republican candidate, not the Democrat.
Yeah, all right I was right. You are not smart enough to see the difference between a district with 20 votes and a district with thousands of votes.
First of all, there were other precincts in other states which also recorded 0 votes for Obama, but more to the point, if the precincts which recorded 0 votes for Romney were due to fraud, then certainly, you can produce thousands of disenfranchised Romney voters screaming they voted for Romney in any of the precincts where Romney got no votes.........
fine let me clear up my misspoken question.Who knows why you're posting that link again? It failed you the first time you posted it.
Let me remind you what you ignorantly claimed ... you said there were Democrat controlled districts where Obama received 110% of the vote. The link you now posted twice is about Wood county in Ohio, where as you've been shown, Obama received about half of all those who voted and about 30% of all registered voters in that county. Let me explain it to ya since you obviously struggle with numbers .... that ain't 110%.
You don't find it puzzling that they had 108% turnout in that county?
Look up what voter turnout is and then what voter registration is
