Wednesday, November 21, 2012

When it comes to claiming voter fraud, dream big

Prior to the election, Dean Chambers had a site called Unskewed Polling.  You may remember them as the group that claimed to believe this would be the outcome of the election:

I tried to make sure this was the correct prediction, but unsurprisingly, the site has been taken down.
One might expect that Chambers would take a few months off to recover from his glaringly incorrect predictions and maybe learn math, but he's back with another web venture:!  No, really, that's what he called it.  It looks like this:

O'Fraudo?  Is that a reference to Irish heritage?  Why?  Is O'Fraudo supposed to sound like Obama?  What the hell, man.
Ignoring the terrible site design--no, just kidding, I'm not going to ignore that.  First of all, there are random links everywhere, 90% of which are broken and go to a 404 not found page.  The image in the upper left is a link, which takes you directly back to the same page it appears on.  Click on the words "Barack O'Fraudo?"  Also a link back to the same page.  You'll note that in the maroon links running horizontally across the top, the first one is slightly lower than the rest.  Why?  Because the blank space contains the words "QStar Network", but for some reason the letters are white on a white background.  His coding is so bad that I couldn't copy-paste any text from the article, because he kept leaving open html tags everywhere and making everything go wonky. 

Of the many, many links, most are about various voter fraud items; for some reason some of them reference voter fraud in 2008 (which, okay, that's semi-related to your crazy person point), and some of them reference voter fraud by Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Dukakis Mondale Jimmy Carter, in 1980, which is 32 years ago.  Why?

If the 1980 election could have been handed to Jimmy Carter by stealing fewer than 2 million votes, less than 3 percent nationwide, then the much closer election of 2012 won by just 2.6 percent in the popular vote and fewer than 400,000 votes in the four key swing stats that denied Mitt Romney the presidency, could easily have been stolen by various methods of vote fraud and ballot-box stuffing.

Okay, the argument is that if we assume Jimmy Carter could have stolen the election by somehow getting 2 million fraudulent votes, then it'd be totally feasible for Obama to do the same, since he only needed 400,000.  Why is that an argument?  This is entirely made up.

Note: This is a scenario, we are NOT suggesting there was any vote fraud in the 1980 election. 

Does anything mean anything?  What are words?  What is life?
What the hell was the point of that?  "If we assume a thing that we are not assuming then this other thing is presumably assumable."  So far, Dean's evidence for voter fraud is that he created an imagination picture where it could have theoretically happened before and if that were true, it could happen again.  Madness.  Anyway, Dean goes on to lay out a whole scenario where Carter could have hypothetically committed voter fraud--it's batshit crazy, and the whole point is that the existence of a theoretical election theft proves that it could happen again, or something.  I can't even paraphrase it without sounding ridiculous.  

Anyway, Dean's main point, aside from showing us how Jimmy Carter helped Barack Obama steal the 1980 election or something, is that the 2012 election is dubious, as some states were affected by (gasp) VOTER FRAUD, as shown:

If Obama had just stolen 63 more electoral votes from Romney, "Obama Fraud" could have placed second in the election.
Shockingly, Dean gives very little evidence to explain why he believes these 4 states were stolen; here's literally the entirety of what he has to say about it.

Evidence of vote fraud is very much like that. Those who engage in it are slick and do all they can to hide it, so the evidence is often quite circumstantial. In fact, often the circumstantial evidence is all the evidence we have, such was finding tens of thousands of bogus votes in the ballot box, we didn't see someone actually put them there, but they are found, they are there, and they are clearly evidence of vote fraud. Such is true of the voting divisions where Obama gets 100 percent of the votes cast. As if anyone REALLY believes that is legitimate...

Let's break down his points:
  • We don't have evidence of voter fraud, which is evidence of voter fraud because vote frauders are slick and good at hiding their work, so the lack of evidence proves it's happening
  • I didn't see people put all those ballots in, so fraud (note: I don't understand what he's saying with "we didn't see someone actually put them there, but they are found, they are there, and they are clearly evidence of vote fraud." If anyone does, please let me know).
  • Obama swept districts that are often swept by Democrats?  As if!
That's all of them.  I guess it's not surprising that the guy who kept saying that the polls were skewed would go ahead and say the vote was skewed after the polls turned out to be right.  Let's close with a quote that Dean uses on his site:

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
           -Henry David Thoreau

I give up.


No comments:

Post a Comment