They’ll keep doing it cause nobody wants to do what it takes to stop them.

And that’s been going on for decades, now.

With that level of data precision voter fraud is as on target as a smart bomb.

Tells: voters polling in the high 90% range — always fraudulent…
Unionized ballot collectors — the pre-vote — of absentee votes…
Late / last ballot tabulations — always at the urban core — typically right next to city hall…

As rural ballots toted up, Romney would pull ahead in Florida, from time to time. Within moments, and in response, ‘urban votes’ jolted ahead — leaving Romney ever further behind.

And one last tell: the final vote WAS far away from the 95% confidence level of serious major polling organizations. North Carolina springs to mind. It wasn’t even considered a swing state! Romney b a r e l y notched it as a win.

Oh, one more: the President’s stump demeanor was that of a resigned loser — while Romney was vibrant and upbeat. Both were paying top dollar for the best internal polling.

What we have is Republican rationalization for their defeat by fraud; which, BTW, doesn’t work unless it’s deniable.

——-

Allen West at least has a nose.

———

The safest, surest way for modern vote fraud is ballot destruction. With zip code linked party preferences now tucked into national political databases — it’s a small matter to ‘disappear’ a set percentage of this or that zip code — and shave the tally enough to toss your man over the top.

I understand that absentee voters can use the Internet to see if their ballot made it in.

A fraudster would merely run a Java script that always informs the voter that, indeed, their ballot has been received.

There’s no audit trail to speak of.

So, hyper motivated crowds in Ohio don’t correlate to voting more strongly than 2008?

It doesn’t pass the smell test.

Did they vote for McCain? This is really the point of curiosity here. Romney was obviously not the candidate of the “conservative base”. But it was also obvious, or seemed so, that this base warmed to him quite a bit more than they did to McCain, not to mention the fact they *really* wanted to vote out Obama. I’m like you neo, a more recent “changer” and not as hard core conservative but this seemed clear to me from the posts I read on right-wing blogs before the election. And even now while there is obviously criticism there is a lot less hating on Romney than there was on McCain from the right.

So if there were “missing” votes – and we should wait until the complete final tally is in which may still take a while – where were they missed? I’m not saying I have an answer one way or the other but when the votes are all in Republicans should study this carefully.

I didn’t do it! Nobody saw me do it! You can’t prove anything!
~ Bart Simpson

That returns me to my original–and simpler–assertion that the elitist Republican leadership alienated large numbers of voters who should have supported them.

I think it’s a combination of that and Democrat shenanigans.

One reason I don’t think it’s that was that not just Akins and Murdock but other Republican Senate candidates didn’t do well, either. Seems to be a trend to me.

rickl: I don’t think fraud was accomplished on a massive scale

But that’s my point. It wasn’t on a massive scale, it was on a micro scale. Combined with the depressed Republican turnout, all they had to do was tweak a few precincts here and there, and they had the detailed data to do it.

The only important race was the Presidential race, since the executive branch is now the most powerful branch of government. Obama can rule, not govern, by executive order.

A couple of Republican Senate candidates shot themselves in the foot, and the House is now largely irrelevant.

How does a great candidate, noted for his business acumen, end up with a poor staff? Perhaps he should have taken advice from more astute politicians, Palin for example. But to me it looks like he got snookered, and like a guy stuck with a manipulative girl friend, his staff isolated him from those who should have been his allies. I’m reminded that Patton got remarkable results from his staff despite the fact that none were considered brilliant men. I think Patton knew exactly what he was doing.

The ORCA thing interests me, apart from the marketing hype of the name which should have killed it on the spot. I have just enough experience to imagine sitting in on the meetings, hearing the excuses, the happy reports, the ‘It’ll be done at the beginning of next month” assurances of a failing software project. Heh.