Wednesday, October 15, 2008

ACORN to be Barack Obama's Waterloo? It certainly helps explain how Barack Obama won so easily in the Caucus Contests Against Hillary Clinton.

Yes, math can be used to verify caucus fraud by Barack Obama's side. Barack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages against Hillary Clinton were ALL from caucus contests.

Primary Contests allow the voter a 12 hour time span to vote, the voter votes in the privacy of a voting booth, and there are a lot more voting places than caucues. Most voters travel much shorter distances to vote in a primary, and this is also the way it is done when people vote in November for our president.

Caucus votes are usually (but not always) started around 7PM. People first declare their vote publicly, then have to discuss their vote, then they vote again, many times using notebook paper to cast their "ballot". Caucus locations are much, much further spread out than when there are primaries. Caucuses can take from 2-4 hours to complete, all that time just to cast a vote.

Barack Obama won approximately 15 caucus state contests and 16-18 primaries, yet his top 11 highest winning percentages were ALL from his caucus victories, NONE were from his primaries. The odds of Barack Obama having his top 11 winning percentages all coming from caucus contests and none from his primary wins is well over 10,000 to one. It's just virtually impossible, unless some type of manipulation occurred, for Barack Obama to have his 11 highest winning percentages all coming from his caucus contest wins and none coming from his primary wins.

Caucus Contests use 88% less total voters to determine the same amount of delegates as states that hold primary contests. 88% less total voters in the caucus contests makes it a lot easier to manipulate results by having people show up who aren't even from that district.

Many caucus contests were held at night in early February in the great plains states which have very tough winters, once again favoring the youth attending and the elderly not attending. Other problems with caucus voting include older people not traveling at night in the winter whereas the younger kids embraced these events as a social gathering.

Even when ID was checked and people were from that voting district, it was very easy to double and triple vote since many times there were no official ballots, just notebook paper to vote on!

Many voters in the caucus contests that would favor Hillary Clinton were simply not able to travel within the very limited time frame and far far distances one would have to travel to vote in a caucus contest.

There are several examples where Hillary Clinton was leading or at the very least tied with Barack Obama in caucus state contest polling done just before the day of the vote, yet Barack Obama would still win the Caucus Contests by a 2-1 margin! Minnesota had Hillary Clinton leading by 7 points margin yet she lost the delgate count by a 2-1 margin!

Four states that held both primaries and caucuses each showed Hillary Clinton gaining massively on Barack in the primary vote as compared to the caucus vote. Nebraska, Washington State and Idaho all showed huge shifts towards Hillary Clinton when they held their primary vote after having a caucus vote. In Texas, Hillary Clinton actually won the primary vote and once again, lost the caucus vote by a 2-1 margin.

As additional proof, Hillary Clinton actually won more delegates than Barack Obama did from all the non caucus contests, also known as primary contests. Even when Florida and Michigan are not counted Hillary Clinton still won more delegates than Barack Obama did in all of the remaining primary contests!

Hillary Clinton won more delegates than Barack Obama did when over 30 million people voted (again not even counting Michigan and Florida, states that Hillary Clinton was easily ahead of Barack Obama).

Only approximately 1.1 million people combined voted in all of the caucus contests, and that is where Barack Obama got his delegate margin of victory. Yes, the will of over 30 million democratic voters was overruled by the will of 1.1 million voters in caucus contests that do not follow the voting rules that are in place when we vote for a president in November.

Barack Obama's entire lead in the 2008 democratic nomination race came from the caucus contests. Barack's years as "community activist" where he recruited people to register anything that moved came in handy. Billionaire George Soros (who was recently spoofed on a Saturday Night live CSPAN segment) helped fund Barack Obama in a variety of ways. There was most likely massive mail in voting that Barack Obama benefited from. North Carolina is one state where Barack Obama had a hundred thousand vote mail in lead over Hillary Clinton even before the official day to vote had arrived.

That was the same day when Indiana mysteriously had late votes coming in and Hillary Clinton's 6-8 point lead turned into only a one point victory.

Yes, Barack Obama most probably did cheat, and his handlers absolutely make sure he is never asked any questions about his questionable wins in the caucus contests. What is saddest of all is that Barack Obama and his followers are the worst violators of the concept of "fair reflection". Robert Wexler of Florida did not even know what Fair Reflection meant during the Florida meeting to determine how to not count their votes.

Fair Reflection is a key component of what the democratic party is supposed to believe in, yet Barack Obama threw it under the bus this year because it was the only way he could win.

For additional suspicious activities by Pelosi and Clyburn that felled Hillary Clinton and could be related to ACORN, Clinton delegates bought by Pelosi and Clyburn


Anonymous said...

LOL, you wish! why so much anger, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here... conspiracy theories abound!

Alessandro Machi said...

Everything I wrote is supported by numbers, not wishing. The preponderance of statistical evidence in virtually every caucus contest points to the distinct likelihood that ACORN helped Barack Obama in the caucus contests.

Anonymous said...

Your numbers are incorrect because your assumptions are incorrect. You seem to have made the ridiculous assumption that the exact same type of people vote in caucuses and primaries.

Alessandro Machi said...

If a voting method is used that deviates from the method used in November to elect a president, and this voting method (such as a caucus) changes the landscape of the type of voter that participates, then it is fraud.

Anonymous said...

"If a voting method is used that deviates from the method used in November to elect a president, and this voting method (such as a caucus) changes the landscape of the type of voter that participates, then it is fraud."

You are incorrect. Political parties themselves determine the rules about how they choose their candidates. They allow some states to have caucuses and some states to have primaries, which obviously have different voting methods (and therefore different results). These are not the same rules that govern the general election.

Besides foolishly misunderstanding the meaning of polling data, as well as the rules that govern the US electoral system, you are obviously a sore loser that your preferred candidate has lost (Hillary) or is about to lose (McCain). If you don't like the rules of either major party, I suggest you join a 3rd party.

Alessandro Machi said...

If highlighting the truth makes me a sore loser, they you may just be a tyrannical winner.