Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: There's something very odd about GOP primary pre-polling and vote

  1. #1

    There's something very odd about GOP primary pre-polling and vote

    There's something very odd about GOP primary pre-polling and vote

    Eric Blair
    Activist Post

    Okay. It's time somebody says it. Something seems very strange about the GOP primary pre-polling and vote thus far.

    As a Ron Paul fan, I didn't want to seem like a sore loser after the odd Iowa result where the failed no-name Senator, Rick Santorum, was catapulted to victory with very little tangible support.

    But now, how on earth could Newt Gingrich win the South Carolina primary when the day before the vote he had to cancel a major campaign stop because of lack of attendance?

    The Associated Press reported:

    Newt Gingrich has cancelled a campaign appearance in South Carolina because of poor attendance.

    The Republican presidential candidate was scheduled to speak to the Southern Republican Leadership on Friday. But a campaign spokesman told reporters that he would no longer be appearing due to poor attendance.

    There were just a few dozen people in the audience at the College of Charleston's arena, where the event was taking place.


    Meanwhile, on the same day Ron Paul boasted over 1000 attendees at his campaign event in Charleston:

    2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul attracted more than 1,000 supporters in Charleston today, demonstrating his strong support among younger voters and his overall popularity.

    The crowd gathered expressly for the 12-term Congressman from Texas as he participated in “The Bully Pulpit Series” at 11:00 a.m. EST at the College of Charleston, located at 7 College Way, Charleston. The candidate had been in Washington the day prior for a key House vote against President Obama raising the debt ceiling, but upon his return there was apparently no loss of enthusiasm.


    Ron Paul speaking to enthusiastic crowd in Charleston, S.C.

    Primary elections are traditionally driven by enthusiasm. In other words, the average voter does not turn out for primaries unless they are motivated by a certain candidate. So, could someone please explain to me how Newt Gingrich, who has virtually no ground game, no money, and no fervent supporters, just won the South Carolina primary?

    Could the conspiracy to keep Ron Paul out of the Oval Office be this coordinated, this pervasive?
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Could the conspiracy to keep Ron Paul out of the Oval Office be this coordinated, this pervasive?
    Why, yes. Yes, it could.

  4. #3
    It could be outright fraud, but you may be just underestimating the power of mass media to mass hypnotize people into executing implanted behaviors.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    It could be outright fraud, but you may be just underestimating the power of mass media to mass hypnotize people into executing implanted behaviors.
    I think they go hand in hand. One must create a perception of legitimacy for the con to work.

  6. #5
    An oft-overlooked problem is voters who think it's their civic duty to vote even if they don't have a strong opinion on the candidates. Older people are especially bad about this and given that we're trying to win the Republican nomination...yeah, it's pretty obvious. To make matters worse, seniors get their news from the Fox, Rush, and Hannity and decide to vote for whomever the idiot box is pimping this week. It's a perfect storm of stupidity.
    Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. -James Madison

  7. #6
    It's not that odd. Those who vote intentionally or not to preserve the status quo are the type who could support Gingrich, but still not go out to airplane hangar and pay $100 to see him.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    I think they go hand in hand. One must create a perception of legitimacy for the con to work.
    The media sets it up...so the fraud can happen. They tripped in with Iowa, IMHO, because most of the polls indicated Dr. Paul had a commanding lead and then the blathering media put the spin on it-- "If Ron Paul wins, Iowa caucus won't matter". Then Mitt and Rick were in first place and Dr. Paul took third??? Then discrepancies appeared, that Rick Santorum actually won, and Santorum's camp was blasé about the whole ordeal, when you would have thought they would be hopping up and down about it. Again, Dr. Paul wasn't even mentioned in that recount discrepancies.

    In New Hampshire, I would bet Dr. Paul would have won by a landslide. However, they gave him second place not to spark and already angry mob and people really observing any hanky panky. But what about the fact that dead people were allowed to vote? Not a peep, about it since! The Attorney General is looking it to--riiiiight!

    Last edited by donnay; 01-22-2012 at 02:24 AM.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  9. #8
    I said something similar in 2008. How can the candidate percentages when 1% are reporting be THE EXACT same percentages when 99% are reporting? How come it's not like a horse race, where the candidates bob up and down until there's a winner? I understand the law of large numbers, but that usually only applies to specifics, i.e. 24 year old, white males with a college education will be this risky of a driver, etc. But for an entire state, across all demographics, for the candidate percentages to remain identical from start to finish blows my mind.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Ron is literally fighting the most powerful political class that has ever existed....I am surprised he is doing as good as he is...that being said, seemingly, a semblance of democracy does exist...I am just disappointed that Ron isn't pulling out all the stops to win this...I think there is a huge disconnect brewing between the grassroots and the campaign...what's all this delegate accumulation being pushed by the campaign...why even mention that? Play stupid, insist, like Huntsman that we are going to beat market expectations and quietly get the delegates..that being said, we want to hear...We are in this to win and will stop at nothing to restore America, yadda, yadda...

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by RCA View Post
    I said something similar in 2008. How can the candidate percentages when 1% are reporting be THE EXACT same percentages when 99% are reporting? How come it's not like a horse race, where the candidates bob up and down until there's a winner? I understand the law of large numbers, but that usually only applies to specifics, i.e. 24 year old, white males with a college education will be this risky of a driver, etc. But for an entire state, across all demographics, for the candidate percentages to remain identical from start to finish blows my mind.
    All results were processed in Barcelona, Spain. By a company called Scytl.

    Now I don't understand why you would have a foreign company count votes.
    To me that looks like a national security risk.

  13. #11
    luctor-et-emergo, Do you have a link to that info?

  14. #12
    FOREIGN COMPANY BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM
    January 17th, 2012

    (USA) 1/12 – GLOBAL INTERNET VOTING FIRM BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM - By Bev Harris
    Permission to reprint granted, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org

    In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world’s dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company.

    When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

    The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

    As local election results funnel through SOE’s servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get “first look” at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

    In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

    This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

    A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

    With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won’t work (if SCYTL’s voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own “audit” by matching one number against the other.

    These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

    With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

    SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

    SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.

    Here is the link to the press release regarding SYCTL’s acquisition of SOE:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/scy...ing-the-leadin g-election-software-provider-2012-01-11

    quote:”In 2007…the top 250 companies in the world had sales in excess of $14.7 trillion…an amount exceeding the GDP [Gross Domestic Product] of the United States or the European Union, $13.2 trillion and $13.7 trillion, respectively…combined sales of the top five (Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and General Motors) was nearly $1.5 trillion — larger than the GDP of all but seven countries.” — Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, by David Rothkopf

    * * * * *

    If you believe Black Box Voting provides an important service, please note that we very much need your support. Will you consider becoming one of our monthly sponsors? Click here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html More

    (USA) – 1/12 – WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON IN IA, NH, AND SC - by Bev Harris

    Despite what you see about who “won” Iowa and who “won” New Hampshire and who “won” South Carolina, that’s not the main function of these very early contests. What they are really about is culling down the field, promptly, and this is not really based on who wins.

    New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent Iowa and South Carolina, play a disproportionate role in removing your choice of candidates in the primary. While you watch the horse race in these three states, understand that if you live in any other state, you are going to have fewer candidate choices, or no chance to vote on the candidate of your choice at all.

    IT’S ABOUT EXPECTATIONS, NOT WINNING

    If a candidate “exceeds expectations” built by TV punditry and whichever poll is being quoted at the time, three things happen:

    1. TV pundits start the drumbeat, building public expectations about “inevitability” of the candidate who did “better than expected”;

    2. Donor money reroutes itself, pouring dollars into the newly inevitable candidate;

    3. Media then reports on the candidate’s prowess in fund raising, citing this newly found skill as reason to believe the candidate is even more inevitable.

    The reverse (fewer votes than “expected”) creates an even more definitive result:

    1. Media speculates repetitively on when the candidate will drop out;

    2. Donor funds for the candidate dry up;

    3. Media cites weaker donations as evidence that the candidate cannot win;

    4. The party begins pushing the candidate to get out of the way;

    5. Articles begin focusing on the cost of primaries in states where people have not yet had an opportunity to vote (underlying message: why do these primaries?);

    6. Pundits begin the new drumbeat: “The longer it takes for candidates to get out of the way, the more damage to the party’s prospects of winning the general election in November.”

    This is why Iowa and New Hampshire are not really about winning. They are about pushing candidates out of the way citing failure to meet expectations, or surprise in exceeding them.

    South Carolina, usually the third state to hold a primary contest, serves as the clean-up round, so that by Super Tuesday (when lots of big states have primaries) only a few candidate choices remain. Non-frontrunners still in the game get so strapped financially that they can’t muster a fight.

    Read more here.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  15. #13
    FFS we do not need to outsource vote counting as well.

    Jesus.

    Paper ballots, counted by hand, even if it takes a week or two to complete.

    $#@! this...



    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    FOREIGN COMPANY BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM
    January 17th, 2012

    (USA) 1/12 – GLOBAL INTERNET VOTING FIRM BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM - By Bev Harris
    Permission to reprint granted, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org

    In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world’s dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company.

    When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

    The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

    As local election results funnel through SOE’s servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get “first look” at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

    In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

    This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

    A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

    With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won’t work (if SCYTL’s voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own “audit” by matching one number against the other.

    These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

    With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

    SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

    SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.

    Here is the link to the press release regarding SYCTL’s acquisition of SOE:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/scy...ing-the-leadin g-election-software-provider-2012-01-11

    quote:”In 2007…the top 250 companies in the world had sales in excess of $14.7 trillion…an amount exceeding the GDP [Gross Domestic Product] of the United States or the European Union, $13.2 trillion and $13.7 trillion, respectively…combined sales of the top five (Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and General Motors) was nearly $1.5 trillion — larger than the GDP of all but seven countries.” — Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, by David Rothkopf

    * * * * *

    If you believe Black Box Voting provides an important service, please note that we very much need your support. Will you consider becoming one of our monthly sponsors? Click here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html More

    (USA) – 1/12 – WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON IN IA, NH, AND SC - by Bev Harris

    Despite what you see about who “won” Iowa and who “won” New Hampshire and who “won” South Carolina, that’s not the main function of these very early contests. What they are really about is culling down the field, promptly, and this is not really based on who wins.

    New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent Iowa and South Carolina, play a disproportionate role in removing your choice of candidates in the primary. While you watch the horse race in these three states, understand that if you live in any other state, you are going to have fewer candidate choices, or no chance to vote on the candidate of your choice at all.

    IT’S ABOUT EXPECTATIONS, NOT WINNING

    If a candidate “exceeds expectations” built by TV punditry and whichever poll is being quoted at the time, three things happen:

    1. TV pundits start the drumbeat, building public expectations about “inevitability” of the candidate who did “better than expected”;

    2. Donor money reroutes itself, pouring dollars into the newly inevitable candidate;

    3. Media then reports on the candidate’s prowess in fund raising, citing this newly found skill as reason to believe the candidate is even more inevitable.

    The reverse (fewer votes than “expected”) creates an even more definitive result:

    1. Media speculates repetitively on when the candidate will drop out;

    2. Donor funds for the candidate dry up;

    3. Media cites weaker donations as evidence that the candidate cannot win;

    4. The party begins pushing the candidate to get out of the way;

    5. Articles begin focusing on the cost of primaries in states where people have not yet had an opportunity to vote (underlying message: why do these primaries?);

    6. Pundits begin the new drumbeat: “The longer it takes for candidates to get out of the way, the more damage to the party’s prospects of winning the general election in November.”

    This is why Iowa and New Hampshire are not really about winning. They are about pushing candidates out of the way citing failure to meet expectations, or surprise in exceeding them.

    South Carolina, usually the third state to hold a primary contest, serves as the clean-up round, so that by Super Tuesday (when lots of big states have primaries) only a few candidate choices remain. Non-frontrunners still in the game get so strapped financially that they can’t muster a fight.

    Read more here.
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by BUSHLIED View Post
    Ron is literally fighting the most powerful political class that has ever existed....I am surprised he is doing as good as he is...that being said, seemingly, a semblance of democracy does exist...I am just disappointed that Ron isn't pulling out all the stops to win this...I think there is a huge disconnect brewing between the grassroots and the campaign...what's all this delegate accumulation being pushed by the campaign...why even mention that? Play stupid, insist, like Huntsman that we are going to beat market expectations and quietly get the delegates..that being said, we want to hear...We are in this to win and will stop at nothing to restore America, yadda, yadda...
    We are already winning and that is pissing off the powers that be--the proof of that is watching the media spin, excluding Dr. Paul as best as they can!

    The secret weapon here is a brokered convention. The campaign has had four years to devise this plan...give them credit, I believe they know what they are doing. We just need to make sure they get the financial support to take this for the long haul!
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  17. #15
    The SLRC that week was plagued with low attendance and horrible failures. We only got like 50 people to come to see Ron.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-22-2012, 03:15 PM
  2. PPP polling Jeb Bush in primary?
    By Agorism in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-15-2011, 12:01 PM
  3. Anyone polling in the washington primary?
    By Agorism in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-17-2010, 05:40 PM
  4. Serious Question about Primary Polling
    By PubliusPublicola in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 08:20 AM
  5. The Accuracy (or not) of primary polling:
    By PINN4CL3 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-21-2007, 10:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •