-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Mike Bloomberg Claims "Vote Fraud" In Low Obama Vote Totals
- Thread starter Pabster
- Start date
blackllotus
Golden Member
Including no votes from Harlem?
jonks
Lifer
Um, I've essentially conceded she's going to lose, so no.
6000+ districts, I don't see it impossible that in some with very small populations and very small turnout that she'd shutout the competition in her home state. Clearly getting 0 votes in a Harlem district should do more than raise eyebrows, but all I said was the 80 out of 6000 was possible, especially if those districts were in rural upstate.
And even if there were a recount, and he won all those districts they're looking at +2 delegates. With his 100+ lead, I don't think this is a major issue.
I'm always concerned with vote fraud, no matter the candidate or the race.
There's no reason a voter should not have 100% confidence that their vote is counted, and accurately.
But the hypocrisy shown in this very thread shall remain on display for our next debate...say, perhaps, the next time some "voting problems" affect a candidate or race that these folks happen to support.
dullard
Elite Member
Vote fraud should be a high priority in a democracy. Without accuate votes, we don't have a democracy any more.
However, this doesn't appear to be much of an issue. You are discussing UNOFFICIAL results; the official results are what matter and there isn't a discrepancy there. Also, in the unofficial results, Clinton had 0 votes in districts in NY as well. Are we to claim vote fraud there against Clinton too? Why not just look at the actual tallies (you know, the tallies that don't show 0 votes for either candidate)? Who cares about the unofficial results?
I can post about an unofficial result in Texas. Let me try: Ron Paul wins! Now that I posted a non-realistic unofficial result, does that mean there is vote fraud in Texas?
If there is actual fraud in the official tallies, then we have something to worry about. If not, then lets move on. Plus, this is 4 day old news anyways.
However, this doesn't appear to be much of an issue. You are discussing UNOFFICIAL results; the official results are what matter and there isn't a discrepancy there. Also, in the unofficial results, Clinton had 0 votes in districts in NY as well. Are we to claim vote fraud there against Clinton too? Why not just look at the actual tallies (you know, the tallies that don't show 0 votes for either candidate)? Who cares about the unofficial results?
I can post about an unofficial result in Texas. Let me try: Ron Paul wins! Now that I posted a non-realistic unofficial result, does that mean there is vote fraud in Texas?
If there is actual fraud in the official tallies, then we have something to worry about. If not, then lets move on. Plus, this is 4 day old news anyways.
Stunt
Diamond Member
Why is Bloomberg an expert on the New York State electoral process? Could it be he doesn't want an ex-NY mayor or a NY senator on the ticket for his independent bid?
He is still investing a ton of money into his campaign for president behind the scenes.
I say make this race interesting and jump in with Arnold (promising an ammendment to the constitution to allow foriegners to become president) as VP. New York and California will get him 86 of maybe 200 if the race is really tight with the other two parties.
He is still investing a ton of money into his campaign for president behind the scenes.
I say make this race interesting and jump in with Arnold (promising an ammendment to the constitution to allow foriegners to become president) as VP. New York and California will get him 86 of maybe 200 if the race is really tight with the other two parties.
jonks
Lifer
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...vote.html?ref=nyregion
"City election officials said they were convinced that there was nothing sinister to account for the inaccurate initial counts, and The Times?s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Mrs. Clinton received zero votes in the initial results. "
Here come the conspiracy nuts: of course she had them give her zero votes in a mere 'handful' of districts! Plausible deniability, hello!!
(Nevermind that the tactical retard Hillary must be, since she obviously decided to have Harlem be one of the districts registering 0 Obama votes because she figured, who'd question that?)
"City election officials said they were convinced that there was nothing sinister to account for the inaccurate initial counts, and The Times?s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Mrs. Clinton received zero votes in the initial results. "
Here come the conspiracy nuts: of course she had them give her zero votes in a mere 'handful' of districts! Plausible deniability, hello!!
(Nevermind that the tactical retard Hillary must be, since she obviously decided to have Harlem be one of the districts registering 0 Obama votes because she figured, who'd question that?)
Plausible deniability indeed. Who'd think she had a hand in it? :laugh:
I realize the "fraud" angle here is sketchy at best -- perhaps it is nothing more than coincidence and incompetence, but any time there are allegations of vote fraud, they need to be investigated. And not by the NY Times. 😉