O primary win = fraud?

[bryanz]

in one word-caucus

lets examine states that had both primary and caucus

Texas: How could one candidate garner almost a million and a half votes and win the primary by four points and lose the caucus by 12 points in the same state on the same day?

Wash St O wins primary by 5 points but caucus by 37 points.

Nebraska win primary by 2 points-caucus by 36 points

Idaho wins primary by 19 and caucus by 62 points.

A review of the caucuses has yielded reports of thousands of irregularities that resulted in 13 out of 14 caucus victories for Obama, a candidate who lost 21 out of 39 primaries.

here is link to long version by author of above data-including how it was accomlished (fraud)-but worth the read -especially if Hilliary supporter.

http://www.lynettelong.com/caucusfraud/

you have got to be the biggest ________ I have ever seen..... you are right there with your liberal brothers on the left.....you don't like the results so attack the process..... Allow me to pass the cheese....This thing has gripped you by the balls....you have to find a way, any way to explain away BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAS SUCCESS.....let it go, let it go.....I'll help you out ... He's smarter than most....stay tuned, he's been on the ropes , the body shots are coming.....the head shots will follow.....

 

[bryanz]

Because I don't agree with you on #'s only means one thing--one of us don't understand them.

Can't say I too disappointed over my # crunching through the years--you don't see me whining about or laying blame on past admins or events--
I take full responsibilty on the good and the bad.

I don't believe, I have ever whined or placed blame on the government for something that happened to me personally.... Unlike you, I think the people that we vote into office and the people that they select to work for us should give us what we pay for. You are right about one thing.... we vote for who we identify with..... I'm voting for the maverick in this race & it's not mccain..... I can see why you identify with him.. Have you ever read what webster has to say about; maverick ? Mr. Clean followed his family path....went from taking orders from his father,military,captures,keating,sindey & her daddy.......My friend, I know what a maverick is, I am a maverick & he's no maverick... mavericks don't join organization were they are paid to take orders..... mavericks don't marry woman and then live off of them and their daddy's money.... who do you think wears the pants in that family ? I'll bet thay don't even argue....well may be they do....she probably even lets him win a few.....I wish I could direct a few commercials for the democrats.... This guy is a fraud......

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

you have got to be the biggest ________ I have ever seen..... you are right there with your liberal brothers on the left.....you don't like the results so attack the process..... Allow me to pass the cheese....This thing has gripped you by the balls....you have to find a way, any way to explain away BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAS SUCCESS.....let it go, let it go.....I'll help you out ... He's smarter than most....stay tuned, he's been on the ropes , the body shots are coming.....the head shots will follow.....

Hmm I thought maybe you had rebuttle on

Texas: How could one candidate garner almost a million and a half votes and win the primary by four points and lose the caucus by 12 points in the same state on the same day?

Wash St O wins primary by 5 points but caucus by 37 points.

Nebraska win primary by 2 points-caucus by 36 points

Idaho wins primary by 19 and caucus by 62 points.

A review of the caucuses has yielded reports of thousands of irregularities that resulted in 13 out of 14 caucus victories for Obama, a candidate who lost 21 out of 39 primaries.

--I see- once again facts totally ignored nor disputed and subject attempted to be diverted in another direction--same song and dance--

 

[bryanz]

Hmm I thought maybe you had rebuttle on

Texas: How could one candidate garner almost a million and a half votes and win the primary by four points and lose the caucus by 12 points in the same state on the same day?

Wash St O wins primary by 5 points but caucus by 37 points.

Nebraska win primary by 2 points-caucus by 36 points

Idaho wins primary by 19 and caucus by 62 points.

A review of the caucuses has yielded reports of thousands of irregularities that resulted in 13 out of 14 caucus victories for Obama, a candidate who lost 21 out of 39 primaries.

--I see- once again facts totally ignored nor disputed and subject attempted to be diverted in another direction--same song and dance--

I have my song and dance, you have yours...

 

[DerrickTulips]

The problem with Obama is he got destroyed in the swing states Dogs. Now he is trying to convince the same people who voted for Hillary they should vote for him. :shrug: If the party was smart they would have ellected Hillary. You hit the nail on the head, he won caucuses, based on the fact that the demographic who votes in caucses all favored Barack Hussein.

 

[Chadman]

It would take some time to go through her 95 page essay on her claim of election fraud in this situation, I don't really have time to do it now. It is telling that the author is very anti-Obama, a devout feminist, and has decided to vote for the republican ticket because he simply put a woman on the ticket and Obama did not. This is the biggest reason for her study, and her allegiances in doing it. She was a Hillary supporter because she is a woman. She is voting republican because there is a woman on the ticket. She even posted a Carl Rove commentary on her website - which tells you all you need to know.

One comment posted on her blogs is also enlightening:

"And yesterday, I understand Senator Obama personally said, ?You can put lipstick on a pig, and it?s still a pig.? Well, Mr. Obama, calling girls names is something fifth grade boys do and I don?t want a fifth grader running my country."

Anyone with any sense of fairness or common sense would know that Obama was not calling Palen a pig. But she is not objective, has a huge hard on for any woman candidate, to the point of switching parties simply to vote for a woman - of any kind.

Now, to your point, I don't have time to study it or attack it. Caucuses historically have favored the candidate with a more voracious support base, because they will show up at the caucus and support their candidate - it's far more in your face and public that a generic primary vote in a booth. No surprise to me AT ALL that Obama would do much better than Hillary in the caucuses - and in the same states, as well.

Nice to see Wayne being so open minded to have such faith in a feminist viewpoint. Very enlightened, when the viewpoint fits your own agenda, eh?

 

[Chadman]

I know, all those Grannys and Pappys wit thay britches hanging Mid ASS, word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://manolomen.com/images/low hanging pants.jpg

JMO.

Nice to see the awesome value of your posts have returned to the scene...

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

It would take some time to go through her 95 page essay on her claim of election fraud in this situation, I don't really have time to do it now. It is telling that the author is very anti-Obama, a devout feminist, and has decided to vote for the republican ticket because he simply put a woman on the ticket and Obama did not. This is the biggest reason for her study, and her allegiances in doing it. She was a Hillary supporter because she is a woman. She is voting republican because there is a woman on the ticket. She even posted a Carl Rove commentary on her website - which tells you all you need to know.

One comment posted on her blogs is also enlightening:

"And yesterday, I understand Senator Obama personally said, ?You can put lipstick on a pig, and it?s still a pig.? Well, Mr. Obama, calling girls names is something fifth grade boys do and I don?t want a fifth grader running my country."

Anyone with any sense of fairness or common sense would know that Obama was not calling Palen a pig. But she is not objective, has a huge hard on for any woman candidate, to the point of switching parties simply to vote for a woman - of any kind.

Now, to your point, I don't have time to study it or attack it. Caucuses historically have favored the candidate with a more voracious support base, because they will show up at the caucus and support their candidate - it's far more in your face and public that a generic primary vote in a booth. No surprise to me AT ALL that Obama would do much better than Hillary in the caucuses - and in the same states, as well.

Nice to see Wayne being so open minded to have such faith in a feminist viewpoint. Very enlightened, when the viewpoint fits your own agenda, eh?

Don't believe I posted any of her opinions Chad-

Believe if you look -I put up the #'s omitting her opinion.

Not like you to rebuke stats with lipstick--most time you reply with rational on point.

As always I value your opinion--so if you have any any logic to the contrary behind the #'s I'd like to here it.

 

[Chadman]

I know you didn't post her opinion specifically Wayne. And I wasn't rebuking her stats - I said I didn't have time - nor probably will make the time to go through 95 pages of something that (as a Hillary supporter) really is not of huge concern to me at the moment.

I did, however, post some logic against the statistics with what I know of caucuses compared to general elections, and how I think it could come into play here. I would also guess there would be some anomalies in some other areas that argue a different point.

Again, Not gonna go through her essay to disprove anything - you can make the point if you like. Not worth disproving by taking that much time for me. When I did understand her personal motivations and why she is working so hard to "prove" this theory, it did cause me to care far less - I know I've seen this from you on many occasions - ripping the messenger without disproving the subject matter. If it were something less time consuming, I might take some time.

 

[dawgball]

Political parties can chose any method to select their candidates. They could have Mr. Mel sniff the butt of one of two dogs named Hillary and Barry for all I care.

Honestly I don't see why the public should foot the bill for the primary elections in the first place. These private clubs should sort out their own inter-party elections.

I've never thought about this, but it has me thinking. Why do we foot the bill for two elections. I despise our two parties, so I am biased, of course.

Let the Dems and Rebs sort out their own skeletons, present their "best" offering, and let us vote. I would almost guarantee that a third party candidate would immediately start making more noise in this setup.