Sat 16 Aug 2008
Did Obama Steal the Nomination Through Caucus Fraud? Was ACORN Involved?
Posted by bobsikes under UncategorizedDr. Lynette Long believes so. She has published a fascinating blog, CaucusFraud, that provides astonshing details that supports her premise. Here’s her take on what happened in Texas:
As I viewed the Texas Primary returns, I was thrilled when Hillary Clinton was declared the winner in Texas. But when national television provided a glimpse of the chaos of the caucus, I thought this does not look like democracy in action. Voters in gymnasiums waiting to caucus in the middle of the night, voters standing in line for hours, and police called into the polls to ensure safety and calm disputes. I did not recognize my country. When all the results were tallied, Texas was painted purple by the pundits since Hillary won the primary and Obama won the caucus. But as the delegates were distributed, I watched the results with dismay and confusion. How could one candidate garner almost a million and a half votes and win the primary by four points and lose the caucus by 12 points in the same state on the same day? Obviously the voters’ perceptions of the candidates had not changed in a few hours. Voters who were voting in the caucus were supposed to have voted in the primary. Obviously caucus voters were not a random sample of primary voters. Certain groups of citizens were less likely or able to attend a caucus: senior citizens afraid to go out or drive at night, single mothers without a babysitter, and people doing shift work. Could these voters, disenfranchised by the process, account for a sixteen point swing in the Texas Two Step? It seemed like a large swing and a statistical improbability to me.
Long says that Democrats know how flawed the caucus system is, yet still wants it. She tells us why:
If caucuses are subject to so many problems, why would Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the leaders of the DNC want to keep them available for the 2012 election cycle? First, Obama does better in caucuses than in primaries because typical caucus goers mirror Obama’s supporters. In the 2008 primary, Obama won 13 out of 14 caucuses, but only 18 out of 39 primaries. In a sense, caucuses are stacked for him. It is interesting to note that in the 2004 Democratic Primary, Nebraska had a primary election, yet in 2008 Nebraska had a caucus. Why the switch? Two, it is easier to defraud a caucus since the process is more casual and typically identification is not necessary. Third, it takes fewer voters to change the outcome of a caucus since fewer voters are involved.
One reason that polls indicate that the race is of so close is because these numbers here. Eight of the caucase states are red states where Obama has no chance to win.
H/T: Commentor Pagar at JustOneMinute
August 17th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Thanks for posting this, Bob.
The lynettelong.com site has a lot of info on bad things that are happening.
“PAID TO REGISTER!
Yesterday Paula Abeles and I and couple of other people were walking past the corner of Conneticut and Q NW and a group of 40 DNC trainers and volunteers were role-playing registering people to vote. As loyal Hillary supporters we tried to educate them about Barack Obama. The vast majority of them were uninformed, but a few were intellectually combative. We continued to watched the training and noticed one of the trainers teaching the volunteers to offer money for voters to register. One of the women with us shouted, “You’re offering money. That’s illegal.” The trainer quickly responded, “You misunderstood.” An argument ensued. Another trainer came up to me and yelled, “We’re going to call the police.” “We’re going to have you arrested.” I looked at her in amazement. “For what, standing on public property.” She yelled back, “For harrassment.” Interesting since I hadn’t said anything. I should have dialed the police on my cell phone. Anyway, I contacted Channel 7 and they came out and did a story today. Here it is, hot off the press.”
As do a lot of other sites, the problem is we (America) has been thru all this before and nothing ever changes.
In 2004, when Stefan Sharkansky @
http://www.soundpolitics.com detailed thousands of voter fraud examples during an election that saw a Democrat governor claiming victory on the basis of 129 votes after a series of recounts, what happened.
The resident US Attorney General refused to examine the evidence.
A sham trial was held where the judge claimed there was no way to throw out illegal votes from felons because no one knew who they voted for.
The legislature passed a bill making it much harder to challenge illegally registered voters.
It’s only a matter of time IMO, before the Democrats can control every election thru fraud and that marks the end of the US. The only hope is for Republicans to become more passionate about stopping fraud than the Democrats are about using it to elect their candidates.