Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: a lot of national polls show willards lies hooked the lemmings - but here are a few good news numbers

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 13, 2012, 9:55 p.m. EST by ericweiss (575)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Ohio:
Romney vs. Obama
PPP (D) Obama 51, Romney 46 Obama +5

Arizona:
Romney vs. Obama
Behavior Research Center Romney 42, Obama 44 Obama +2

Ohio Senate -
Mandel vs. Brown
PPP (D) Brown 49, Mandel 42 Brown +7

Arizona Senate -
Flake vs. Carmona
Behavior Research Center Flake 40, Carmona 44 Carmona +4

39 Comments

39 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Don't worry polls also show that people are believing the lies of Obama too.

Lies like he works for peace.

Which warmonger who supports the patriot act and the drug laws and the banks are you going to vote for?

Fuck the system! Obama and Romney are corporate whores who do not represent OWS interests.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

The only poll to believed is the one when they are done counting the votes all other polls are for feeble minded sheep.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Sadly that's the poll one can't beleive as the election is quite hackable by the GOP's operatives and if they can - believe it- they will.

[-] 2 points by Barfnow (-16) 1 year ago

So if Romney wins it must be fraud?

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Probably.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

And yet every Democrat here will tell you that there's no such thing as voter fraud....

If it's hackable by the GOP operatives, it's hackable by the Dems too.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

There is miniscule voter fraud and rampant election fraud - two very different things Betsy.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Then rampant election fraud is possible by the Dems too.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

voter machine fraud by the Rs is detailed in a recent Harper's expose

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Yes it would be possible and certainly has been done by Democrats in the past- notoriously in NYC and The Deep South as well as Chicago. What there needs to be is a systemic way to prevent it like paper ballots or at least paper receipts for computerized votes, Public vote counting, stuff like that.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So how exactly do you think the current votes are recorded and counted?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

_So how exactly do you think the current votes are recorded and counted _
I dont think -
I KNOW
easily falsified computers add up the votes look up Diebold & 2008 election or check hagel election

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Baxter does it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4-wQhtRiP8&list=UUN2IKlw21jjchVhYxuXurCg&index=1&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZp3rA1XXjw&feature=autoplay&list=UUN2IKlw21jjchVhYxuXurCg&playnext=1

Be honest Bety. Conservatives regard the votes of the 47 % as not being legitimate. To wipe out such votes to Conservatives is something to be proud of.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Really? How would you know what makes "Conservatives" proud and what doesn't? I don't recall any study ever done that included all of them and concluded any such thing. But then, with you speaking for all of them, who needs evidence?

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Should the poor be allowed to vote?

http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/09/should-the-poor-be-allowed-to-vote.html

Last week, right-wing pundit Matthew Vadum created a stir when he argued that -- as his piece at American Thinker is titled -- "Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American." Here's how the piece starts:

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

Equating "the poor" with criminals? Suggesting the wealthy aren't "open to bribery?" 45 years after the Supreme Court ruled in the poll tax case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that voter qualifications can't be based on wealth, implying that maybe they should?

Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA-Irvine, summed up the reaction of many: "Back after I puke."

But not everyone was turned off by Vadum's missive. Indeed, the next day, Vadum was invited to appear on Eric Bolling's Fox Business show to rail against President Obama's voter outreach plan.

Vadum isn't exactly a fringe figure on the right. Author of a 2011 book "exposing" ACORN -- praised by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) -- and writer for popular conservative websites like BigGovernment, Vadum works at the Capital Research Foundation, which has received millions of dollars from foundations run by the Koch brothers and other top conservative benefactors.

Indeed, the idea that citizens of lesser means -- even during a lingering economic downturn -- should be denied the franchise is a theme that appears to be gaining currency among some leading conservatives.

Last year, Judson Phillips, president of Nashville-based Tea Party Nation, declared on a radio show that it "makes a lot of sense" to go back to a system in the U.S. where voting is restricted to citizens who own property -- a troubling prospect for the one-third of U.S. residents who rent their homes, and would presumably be denied the franchise.

Rush Limbaugh seems to agree with Vadum as well. In December 2010, commenting on a news report about people lining up for housing assistance, Limbaugh asked:

"If people can't even feed and clothe themselves should they be allowed to vote? Should they be voting?"

As Ari Berman points out in a recent Rolling Stone piece, this isn't the first time leading conservatives have called for taking the franchise from those at the lower end of the economic ladder -- and less likely to vote Republican.

As influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelicals in 1980:

I don't want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

While not as shocking as outright calls to keep poor people from voting, Berman argues that Republicans have pushed a bevy of laws over the last year that could have the same result, including requirements for voters to show a photo ID at the polls, restrictions on voter registration drives and moves to limit early voting.

The aim of peeling off Democratic votes with a big election year coming up seems clear enough. But historian Alex Keyssar, author of the seminal book The Right to Vote, argues that attempts to limit voting may have as much to do with economics as politics.

In U.S. history, for example, elites have pushed to restrict voting among the lower classes during times of economic upheaval, in part to stave off the possibility of political revolt:

The most common source of contractions of the franchise [in U.S. history has been] class apprehension--particularly when coupled with racial or ethnic divisions. The most well-known instance, of course, was the disfranchisement of African Americans in the South at the end of the nineteenth century; this was prompted not only by racism but by the desire of many white Southerners to maintain a disciplined and powerless agricultural labor force. Similar impulses figured in the passage of literacy tests aimed at Irish immigrants in Massachusetts in the 1850s, or Italians and Jews in New York in the early 1920s.

Which, says Judith Browne-Dianis of the civil rights group The Advancement Project, eerily resembles what is happening today:

Our democracy is supposed to be a government by, of and for the people. It doesn't matter how much money you have, what race you are or where you live in the country - we all get to have the same amount of power by going into the voting booth on Election Day. But those who passed these laws believe that only some people should participate. The restrictions undermine democracy by cutting off the voices of the people."

0 Your rating: None

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Valuable, and useful comment.

Thanks.

We have great threats to contend with. But if we succeed it will be the last attempt for a long time I think. (hope)

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm sorry-no comprehensive study showing that ALL conservatives think exactly alike or agree with any of the opinions expressed or assumptions made about any of the 'conservative' people quoted.

I personally do not believe that people who are not legal residents of a given country have any right to "vote" in elections or decisions made within those countries. I have no problem with ANYONE voting-poor, rich, stupid, smart etc as long as they are citizens of this country.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Every conservative? Of course not - just the ones with the megaphones and mega dittos. Lots of people call themselves conservatives due to their religious beliefs regarding abortion and homosexuality and also a residue of white supremacism but when asked about each and every economic issue shake out very differently. It is a major challenge to progressives to reach these folks and get them doing things in their own best interests.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Really, name one EV machine CEO that has endorsed Obama. We don't control the machines, the counting, the national propaganda media. The RATpublicans are the ones with those powers.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So if Obama wins....what are you going to claim?

That the Republicans aren't actual cheaters or that the Democrats (who you say today don't control the machines) somehow figured out how to make them work and ONLY adjusted the votes that were manipulated first by the Republicans?

This line of argument is so flawed it's not funny.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Obama can only win if his margin is too big for the lying, cheating Republicans to overcome. In a sense polls are more important then the actual election. If the criminal RATpublicans feel that they can't sell a Republican win, that the public won't accept the legitimacy of the election they won't cheat (much).

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the ONLY solution is to verify the computer totals with paper counting

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Wait after the 2000 election dem screamed they wanted ele. Voteing machines then everyone screamed they wanted them. Now some are bitching about them? Guess it just shows you can't please everyone.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

They have the voting machines in Venezuela and they worked well because each voter got a paper receipt of his vote. That doesn't happen in many states here. I would prefer paper ballots counted in the presence of representatives of all parties including "fringe" and third parties.

[+] -4 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Yea if someone wants to "cheat" they will find away. After the hanging chad debacle everyone thought ele. Voteing machines were god sends.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

just ask chuck hagel & diebold

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

The way proposed above - paper ballots or paper receipts for computerized votes coupled with public vote counting at which the various political parties are represented would go a very long way towards reducing the problem to insignificant levels.

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

try going to UnSkewedPolls .com

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Keep telling your little self that Mental Midget.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/misc/scoreboard/

Not to mention the Electoral Map. lol. Even your crappy website for mental midgets has Pres. Obama at 301. Intrade has correctly predicted with near pinpoint accuracy the last two general elections since being founded in 2002. Not your mental midget site that includes a link to - wait for it ... wait for it .... Rush Limbaugh! Among other crappy sites it links to. Like 'The Freedomist'. Whatever the fuck that piece of crap is. But it looks like some kind of bizarro world mind meld put together between some mentally ill conspiracy theorists when they bumped into some tea party knuckle draggers. What happens when conspiracy theorists get together with knuckle draggers from the tea party? The Freedomist! Yes alva. This is really perfect for idiots like yourself.

http://freedomist.com/category/freedom-headlines/

[+] -4 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

dear mouth breather,you have it backward, romney is at 301.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Holy shit. Your site is a bigger piece of crap than I thought. You're joking me right. Your site links to an article in the 'examiner' with an electoral map from Sept 21.

Your site with 301 electoral votes for Romney is an article from a month ago. lol.

http://www.examiner.com/article/an-updated-look-at-the-2012-electoral-college-map-with-polls-11?CID=obinsite

The most recent map I can find in the 'examiner' is from Oct 5. Which had Pres. Obama at 332.

http://www.examiner.com/article/an-updated-look-at-the-2012-electoral-college-map-with-polls-11?CID=obinsite

You really crack me up alva.

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

try going to unskewed polls again, current electoral , romney 342, obama 196.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Sorry. I can't take anything seriously from a site that links to Rush Limbaugh and The Freedomist. lol. If you think this site is reliable data it's fine with me. You go ahead and keep thinking that. Is there any evidence that it has a track record in forecasting previous elections? Like Intrade?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Unskewed is statisticulation

Oh no, your White night seems to be a statisticulation artist.

Or in his own words, "It's only an estimate," he said in a phone interview Wednesday. "My unskewing is an attempt to repair their badly done polling data. Romney not might actually lead by 8 percent. But he's definitely not behind by the 7 percent they report."

http://www.businessinsider.com/unskewed-polling-dean-chambers-poll-bias-skewed-obama-romney-2012-9

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

and the earth is 6000 years old & creationism is real
wanna buy a bridge ?

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

republiclan hoax

[+] -4 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

sorry, its the truth. the hoax it what you cite. the ppp poll is is dem + 11, same with the marist poll.