Tuesday, July 29, 2008

A Recap of 2008 Democratic Caucus Cheating and Irregularities that ALWAYS FAVORED Barack Obama.

•Iowa Caucus, A lot of little things that added up to big time unethical behavior. Barack Obama creates a postcard back in October of 2007 for Iowa voters that misrepresents his voting record in the Iraq vote. Because Barack Obama did not show up for the vote, he describes himself as being against the war from the beginning!

John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Barack Obama share their voters precinct by precinct to maximize their impact. If Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards had combined forces, charges of racism would have rightfully been claimed.

But in this instance, there are no charges of either sexism or ageism, as the three younger men collude to defeat the (slightly) older female. Edwards is able to barely defeat Hillary Clinton for second place as a direct result of this collusion.

•Michigan, Barack Obama also took his name off of the Michigan ballot in October of 2007 on the last day it was legal to do so so that he could brag to Iowans that he supported their going first and that Michigan should be punished for trying to move their primary date forward.

Not only does Barack Obama berate Michangers to get a bump in Iowa, Barack ends up getting only five less delegates in Michigan than Hillary Clinton, even though Hillary was leading by 15%-20%. Barack Obama took his name off of the ballot, that was a gamble he made, he should take responsiblity and acknowledge it was a purely political move to gain an edge in Iowa. But that would require Barack Obama having integrity and honesty.

•Illinois, In what may have been the absolute height of arrogance, graft, and egocentric action, Illinois MOVES UP THEIR PRIMARY DATE BY SEVEN WEEKS to the beginning of February, 2008. The combination of blockading the Michigan Vote total along with Illinois moving up their primary date causes a gargantuan shift in delegate totals that has been completely manipulated by democratic officials.

•Florida, The democratic legislators acquiesce to a Republican majority congress to move the Florida primary date into January after the Republicans dangle a paper ballot initiative that would make any future voting controversies easier to investigate. Floridians were ensuring that future presidential votes would be more easily verifiable and for that they are sanctioned.

The democratic party punishes both Hillary Clinton and the voters of Florida by halving the delegate vote. Florida was to Hillary what Illinois was to Barack Obama. Barack Obama got his Illinois, Hillary Clinton did not get her Florida.

•Nevada Caucus, In a bizarre Twist, the Clinton Campaign is accused of racism towards Hispanics. The Nevada Teachers Union challenges the method used by the Vegas Culinary Union for caucusing. The Vegas Culinary Union will hold 11 caucuses along the strip that will only be available to hotel employees, who will be forced to vote in front of their bosses who back Barack Obama.

The Nevada Teachers union lawsuit claims these caucuses will have more influence than any other caucus in the state. Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote in the state but only gets 11 delegates to Barack Obama's 14, pretty much proving that the Nevada Teachers union was right.

•South Carolina, not a primary, however when Bill Clinton compares Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson in South Carolina, racism charges are AGAIN leveled against the Clintons. A ridiculous notion when one considers that it was an AA contingent from New York that encouraged Hillary Clinton to run for the Presidency.

If it was not in good taste to compare Jesse Jackson to Barack Obama, that is one thing, but it certainly was not meant in a racist manner in the least. The media plays up the racist angle to the hilt.

John Edwards mysteriously quits the race just days before February Super Tuesday. John Edwards top rural advisor, states on MSNBC, "I will do everything in my power so he (John Edwards) does not endorse Hillary Clinton." Could this help explain the immediate spike in Barack Obama's numbers, and the clearly innaccurate results in the caucus state votes that occur over the next 10 days? Just look at what happens in the Caucuses that are held in February...

•Minnesota Caucus, Hillary Clinton was leading by 7 points about one week before the caucus but then loses the caucus vote by a TWO to ONE margin. A poll by Jacob's center and Minnesota Public Radio, released five days before Super Tuesday, showed Clinton leading Obama 40%-33%, within the poll's margin of error. The caucus result was 68% Barack Obama, 32% for Hillary Clinton, a stunning reversal and clearly one wrought with some type of voter fraud.

•Colorado Caucus, Just as was the case in Minnesota, Hillary Clinton was leading by a slim margin just prior to the Colorado Caucus, then loses by 34 points.

•Washington State Caucus. A Survey SA poll of Washington released Friday, the day before the caucus, showed Obama at 50%, Clinton at 45%. Obama won the caucus, 68%-31%. A non-binding primary vote held 10 days later reveals Barack Obama winning 51-46%. Amazing how the poll and the primary vote turn out virtually identical, but once again the Caucus vote reveals a ludicrously large more than 2-1 showing for Barack Obama.

•Nebraska Caucus, Hillary Clinton loses the caucus by 35 points, but then loses a follow up Nebraska primary by only 2 points. The graph of the Nebraska Primary Results are put up on MSNBC several times on election night, the MSNBC commentators IGNORE the results and focus ALL of their attention on the other contest from that night.

At one point, one of the MSNBC hosts demands the Nebraska graphic be taken down without any comment being made about the remarkable gain Hillary Clinton has made in the Nebraska primary as compared to the prior Nebraska Caucus.
•Idaho Caucus, A 79%-19% Barack Obama caucus victory shrinks to a 56%-37% primary victory. In essence, Hillary Clinton has increased her vote by 200% while Barack Obama's total is reduced by 30%, a 230% swing in vote totals between the candidates from the caucus to the primary vote.

•Texas Two Step. Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote but once again, Barack Obama actually gains 99 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 94 delegates. Some caucus votes mysteriously disappear, people are told not to bother showing up to regional caucus meetings as super delegates get diverted to Barack Obama. Caucus locations are shifted 45 miles or farther, preventing many from attending. Amazingly, once again, Hillary Clinton wins the primary vote but loses the Texas caucus vote by a 2-1 margin.

•Virgin Islands Caucus revealed a 90% to 10% margin of Victory for Barack Obama. That is a pretty laughable margin of victory and speaks to the insatiable greed of the Barack Obama camp. Although only 3 delegates are at stake, Barack Obama gets all three. Clearly a 2-1 delegate split is a fairer alternative, but this won't happen from the campaign that advocates change.

Margin of Victory Challenges should be allowed on Caucus contests that exceed a 60%-40% margin. If a candidate loses a caucus by a bigger margin than 60%-40%, they should be allowed to challenge the results via a primary vote if they desire.

•Guam Caucus, Allegations are made that the vote is stopped even as the final precinct results are still being counted, a precinct that is heavily pro Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama "wins" the Guam primary by a total of seven votes!

•North Carolina was not a caucus, however North Carolina was given 28 extra delegates for NOT moving their primary date forward. Was such an offer made to Michigan? North Carolina mail in registration voting shows a huge increase as compared to four years earlier. Barack Obama has a 100,000 lead in North Carolina before the first vote is cast on the day of the primary. Three counties that heavily favored Barack Obama may have had their votes counted twice. Apparently a correction to the vote total was never made even though North Carolina had another three weeks to make the final correction.

What MSNBC called a mandate victory in North Carolina might only have been a 5%-7% margin of victory among voters who actually walked up to the polls and voted that day. Allegations that many of the registrations were postmarked from Washington D.C. are neither confirmed or denied.

When mail in votes are allowed prior to the day of walk up voting, Barack Obama seems to pick up huge advance leads.

Finally, there is the 555 controversy. Hillary Clinton wins 11 out of 12 states and gains 555 delegates, Barack Obama LOSES those same 11 out of 12 states, and gains 550 delegates! Hillary Clinton only gains 5 more delegates than Barack Obama even though she has an 11-1 record and Barack Obama has a 1-11 record in the 12 states pictured up above.

When you add this all up, it easily equals a 400 shift in delegates, meaning Hillary Clinton should have 200 more delegates than what she currently has, and Barack Obama should have 200 less delegates than what he currently has. Hillary Clinton should be the presumptive nominee for the democratic party, not Barack Obama.
And who came up with the word "presumptive" anyways? Another media tool designed to force Hillary Clinton to quit before the convention.


Anonymous said...

This just goes to show he will go to ANY LENGTH to Win the WHITEHOUSE!!! NOOOOOOOOOOBAMA!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Dude, I was in Iowa. Hillary wasn't even viable in my precinct the first time around, and had to snatch up a lot of dodd and biden supporters to get any delegates at all. 'combining forces" is the name of the game in a caucus system, and it has nothing to do with sexism. sure, maybe richardson, edwards, and obama supporters horse-traded to keep hillary from getting delegates, but that's not because of sexism; it's because they didn't think she was the candidate the party needed.

TL;DR: you don't have a clue.

Alessandro Machi said...

The point is, if Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson had combined forces, it would have rightfully been called racism against Barack Obama.

But when three younger males do it to a slightly older female there are neither calls of ageism or sexism.

You also know that Barack Obama LIED on his postcard that went out in October of 07 and that Barack Obama used taking his name off the ballot in Michigan to kiss up to Iowans.

By your rules, that would be fair. But then Barack Obama goes crying to the D.N.C. that he should get a very large chunk of the Michigan delegates as well.

What kind of idiocy and two year old gamesmansship of "mine, mine, mine" does this guy believe in?

He won in Iowa, now leave Michigan alone since HE CHOSE to take his name off of the ballot specifically to get an early edge against Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama is like a gambler that doesn't know when to hold em or when to fold em.

Mawachpo said...

There should be no ambivalence toward Barack Obama. If you still need convincing of his utter unacceptability I suggest you start reading this blog here:


Bonnie does an incredible job of exposing the ridiculous of Sen. Obama, whether it's his ideas or his tactic, blatant or subtle, she says it better than anyone.

Anonymous said...

Oh come on. And just which district in Guam is the pro-Clinton one? Which disenfranchised district in Guam would have turned the whole thing around, according to "reports," if the thing hadn't ended early. I mean, jesus, this whole site's silly, but that one's just nuts.
And less than half of the field was on the ticket in Michigan: Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel—or the people most needing a little boost. And, no, Florida was not going to be Clinton's Illinois; New York was Clinton's Illinois. Get over Elian Gonzalez, for christ's sake.
I mean, really there's no time for a point-by-point rebuttal because you've written hours of idiocies.

Anonymous said...

You're a nut!

Alessandro Machi said...

Barack Obama was leading by 7 votes in Guam and they stopped counting. Florida is home to a lot of retirees, it was and is Hillary Country.

Anonymous said...

The majority of this theory appears to be: "More people voted for Obama, clearly he cheated."

Alessandro Machi said...

2-1 margin of victories in caucus contests clearly do not fairly represent the will of the voters in those states.

it's ludicrous to think that Hillary Clinton wins in 8 of the 10 biggest states, yet would be only half as popular as Barack Obama in caucus contests that rely on 88% LESS voters to determine each delegate.