Thursday, February 20, 2014

Will Democrats Lose The Senate? What The Analysts Forget To Figure In

Sean Trende is the senior elections analyst for the popular site RealClearPolitics, and a fairly smart guy when it comes to forecasting and analyzing elections and things political.

He has an interesting piece up that caught my eye today entitled,How Likely Are Democrats to Lose the Senate?

In it, he goes through a meticulous mathematical analysis based generating a large number of random values within prescribed limits in order to the likelihood of a Democrats losing the senate, and it really is an impressive piece of figuring,based on models used by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight,another gifted analyst.

His end conclusion? :

With all of that said, this is a very, very challenging map for Democrats. As things presently stand, the map probably makes them underdogs to hold the Senate. Barring some sort of change in the national environment or meltdown in the Republican nominations process -- neither of which is impossible -- Democrats are likely in for a very long night on Nov. 4.

However, there is another factor that he and most other political analysts ignore that makes this kind of speculation pretty moot. He doesn't mention that In two straight elections, (2010 and 2012) President Obama was able to get away with massive voter fraud,which included using the Justice Department to suppress the active duty military vote. Here are a few factoids from 2012 alone to ponder:

*In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. That's a mathematical and statistical impossibility.

Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by 166,214 votes in Ohio in 2012, out of 5,489,028 votes cast. So Obama’s victory margin was just 3 percent, 50 to 47 over Romney. In Ohio, an estimated 1 in 5 'voters' shouldn't be on the rolls at all, because they're deceased, felons or have multiple registered in other states (an estimated 1.8 million dead people and nearly 3 million who have registered to vote in multiple states). When Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted sought permission from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to clean up the rolls in a Feb. 10th letter, Holder never even bothered to reply after multiple attempts.

Not surprisingly, voter fraud in Ohio is already known to have occurred in 2008 and 2012, and at least 3 Cincinnati poll workers have already been convicted of voter fraud in the 2012 elections.

In North Carolina, the Obama Campaign was directly implicated in major voter fraud.

Similar story in Philadelphia, where again President Obama got a suspiciously high turnout and vote tally in many locations.

It's also a matter of record that President Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID to vote and lost in all but four state that did, and three of them (Michigan, New Hampshire, and Hawaii) were fairly Blue states anyway, and in the other, Florida, there were also reports of voter fraud that are difficult to assess because the Justice Department refused to investigate a single case of voter fraud nation wide. The DOJ is now attacking the voter ID laws in at least 4 Red states I can think of offhand,including Texas.

And if you think voter fraud doesn't affect senate elections, ask Senator Franken.

While President Obama is not running in 2014, it's a reasonable assumption that he will intervene again to the degree possible to ensure the continuation of his agenda and to fend off the very real threat of impeachment.

Also, it's worth noting that Washington, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, Maryland,, DC, Connecticut, ,Vermont and Puerto Rico have all passed laws allowing illegal aliens driver's licenses, which means they also automatically get voter registration documents. Such laws are pending in Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. Voter fraud in California and in Colorado involving illegal aliens and absentee ballots is already a documented fact.

In some of these states, especially places like California where there is also no voter ID requirement and the existing Democrat state government winks at voter fraud that favors Democrats, you are unlikely to see a Republican senator elected.

Does this mean that the Democrats will hold on to the Senate? Not necessarily. But it certainly means that any analysis that doesn't figure democrat voter fraud in is inherently flawed, unfortunately.

1 comment:

louielouie said...

i have long pondered ff, and others for that matter, use of the term "voter fraud".
to myself, not a literary giant, the term "voter fraud" to me implies that voters have committed fraud.
when an election official enters the final vote tally from the keyboard of their laptops or whatever type of computer, without regard to the vote tally, that does not indicate that the voters have committed fraud.
treason is a word that i would use to describe the actions of these select individuals.
i just don't think that the term "voter fraud" applies as ff uses it in this and other previous essays.
to me "voter fraud" would be ff running for the US senate and me flying to LA to vote five or six times for him, then flying to sacramento to vote five or six times more. in this case i have committed "voter fraud".
considering the model that hussein has provided, to the marxists in these past two elections, i think the dims pickup up 3 to 4 seats in the senate, and about a bakers dozen seats in the house.
which says more about what's left of this country than "voter fraud".