|
Key Note Address to the Democratic National Convention of Denver
a. Importance of this day
This summer 150 years ago Abraham Lincoln addressed a convention like this one. The address has come to be known as the House Divided speech. No Convention of any party forever would be dishonored by opening with this speech because time has not changed the enemy nor his rules and bylaws, means and ways. But time has allowed the same enemy to appear under other false colors. You lack experience in dealing with Neo-Conservatives; you would know how to handle them were they still called Slave Power. Lincoln lacked experience to deal with the Slave Power; Lincoln would know how to deal with them without a civil war were they still called Tories. Clinical psychopaths are known for frequent change of names. Listen carefully to Lincoln address with names updated for your present impasse:
GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery, so to speak -- compounded of ...
(to update, rules and bylaws, introducing of caucuses into 15 states which had been primaries two elections before, proportional delegate allocation instead of winner take all as the other party, voiding of two state primaries which the other party attended undisturbed, moving of ninety thousand outside voters to Iowa a year before primaries to produce a queer singularity contrary to national polls, timing of Spitzer outing, pressure put on un-pledged delegates to pledge before time.)
Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning. ... Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. ... We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -
(to update, Herman, Roosevelt, Karl Crist, Charlie Rove, Karl Schumer, Granholm, Pelosi, Kerry, Limbaugh, Axelrod, and Dean for instance) --
and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a jail or a pen, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few -- not omitting even scaffolding -- or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in -- in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that (to update, Herman, Roosevelt, Crist, Rove, Schumer, Granholm, Pelosi, Kerry, Limbaugh, Axelrod, and Dean) all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.
(to update, Why mention punishing of a State primary? They were bylawing for early Nevada primary, and not for or about early primaries of other states possibly to be legislated by law makers and a governor of the other party.)
Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends -- those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work -- who do care for the result.
Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now? --now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail -- if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.
So Lincoln in 1858. Two years after this speech, at the Democratic National Convention of 1860 the Slave Power moved to capture the whole party but enough Democrats were energized by the speech to repulse the attempt.
Had there been a Lincoln in the Democratic party of 1974 to give such a speech, legacy Republicans would wake up and expel those around Nixon who were framing him so they could take over the party. Since eviction of Nixon, that party has fallen into hands of what has come to be known as Neo-conservatives and is none other than the old Slave Power of the Confederate states, Dixie States or Red States, Evangelical Bible belt of Adventist zealots. know to Blacks still as Kluxers or Klansmen.
Back in the year of that Lincoln speech, real democrats in the Democratic party had been bound into impotence by rules and bylaws. Americans had slumbered over a generation and allowed the Tory fifth column to take over most positions of authority within the party one after the other. When the fifth column made its final bid to take total control, native democrats, real owners of the party, resisted. It was almost too late to outvote the fifth column.
Wikipedia: At the Democratic National Convention in April 1860, 50 southern Democrats walked out over a platform dispute. Six candidates were nominated including Stephen Douglas, US Senator from of Illinois. On the 57th ballot, Douglas was still ahead, but still 50 votes short of nomination. In desperation, on May 3 the delegates agreed to stop voting and adjourn the convention. Democrats convened again on June 18. This time 110 southern delegates led by properly called Fire-Eaters, walked out when the convention would not adopt a resolution supporting slavery in the territories. After many ballots, the remaining Democrats nominated the ticket of Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois for President. Southern Democrats reconvened in Richmond, Virginia, and on June 28 nominated the pro-slavery incumbent Vice President, John Cabell Breckinridge of Kentucky, for President. Douglas had an important presence in southern cities, especially among Irish Americans. The election was held on November 6. It was noteworthy for the exaggerated sectionalism of the vote, with Lincoln not even on the ballot in nine Southern states and winning only two of 996 counties in the entire South. In the six states still permitting slavery where he was on the ballot, he came in fourth in every state except Delaware (3rd). Breckinridge, who was the sitting Vice-President of the United States and the only candidate to later support secession, won all the states that would form the Confederacy except Virginia and Tennessee.
You know what followed. Two halves of Democratic party lost the election to Mr. Lincoln of the Republican Party.
Now in this Convention of 2008 you have again a nominee supported by Southern Red States and a nominee supported by the Northern Blue States and the Democratic party is like splitting again. Unluckily candidate of the Republican party is neither a Lincoln nor a Nixon.
Back in 1860 Slave power was confined to Southern half of the Democratic party which was bad enough. This year, the Slave Power which is now called Neo-Conservatives possesses the Republican party since 32 years already and is now making a bid to capture the Democratic Party as well. If they succeed, the next election will be between Neo-cons and Neo-Libs and decent folk rendered impotent will be whispering to each other that there is no difference between the two extremes who have captured control of the two parties.
In this Convention native democrats have their last opportunity to defeat a hostile take over of the party. Miss this opportunity and both parties go under the same power. Legacy Republicans of the party of Lincoln and legacy democrats of the party or Wilson, Kennedy, Clinton, will have to come together in a third party condemned to weak opposition for many years for lack of a neutral media while Slave Power spreads its net under disguise of Homeland security over all States. Homeland Security would be an affair for states rather than federal had this fate not been already planned. Subversion of the Republic through capture of its two parties has been planned very long term.
In this Convention, legacy blue democrats have their last chance to defeat the Red State takeover attempt. You still can expel the fifth column. You still can recover the party for the Democratic base. Take your party back if you dare but if you do not, call things by their names, leave one more party to the Slave Power and move to a third party where legacy Republicans will also join you. Cynthia McKinney being the pioneer on this path, rally to her flag.
Attempt of the Slave power to capture the Democratic party is now to be finalized in this Convention. The attempt can still be repulsed if enough delegates review in their minds the rules and bylaws of the last two years, introduction of caucuses in the last two elections where there had been primaries before, the several court decisions regarding law suits of Florida Democrats against Democratic National Committee DNC, of McKinney against crossover manipulation of 2002, of Mississippi blacks against crossovers in 2006, of gay marriage issues, of partial birth abortion issues. Even though at first not very obvious, every one of these court rulings has augmented grip of the Neo cons over both parties and over the Republic.
You can repulse this assault on the Democratic party by voting down the nominee given you by red state primaries and hijacked caucuses. You all heard anecdotal evidence of caucuses being hijacked. Anecdotal evidence stands in bad repute but if counted it would recover its good name; a reply to a pollster is nothing but anecdote. The counting makes it evidence but bad counting makes it bad evidence. You have been dished bad evidence.
Texas caucus gives the show away. When the same total voters of the same state on the same day produce results differing by 16 points between primary and caucus, you know one of them has been tainted. Bigger numbers of the base had the opportunity to vote in the primary but the intricate conditions of participating in a caucus reduced number of participants to a quarter. Of the two, caucus is tainted, being suitable to attack by professional hijackers. You know which nominee is favored by 16 points in the Texas caucuses over the Texas primary.
You can vote here with justification to unseat all caucus delegates for their being stolen delegates.
But you can do even better. Three primaries are obviously not tainted by cross over raiders for reasons known to all of you: Florida, Michigan and Puerto Rico primaries were not raided. You can view results of these three primaries to be the best indicator of Democratic base desire nationwide and pick the nominee accordingly.
Besides you know that Axelrod campaign invited Republicans to vote in Democratic primary. Axelrod campaign did this from early 2007 till end of February 2008. This campaign for Obama Republicans was done in broad daylight. Thank you for the support but why are we whispering, said Obama to republicans many times. Media pundits far from making a secret of this, announced it as evidence of appeal. Michael Reagan, son of the late president and conservative radio host in California, invited Republicans to vote for Axelrod's client. His brother Ron Reagan endorsed the client of Axelrod on CNN Larry King show. All other conservative radio hosts did the same till end of February. But in February also Democratic base blogs were alerted to enemy raiding and forced DNC to take notice. Only then and only for one week from March 1 did Limbaugh change accent. On March 8 Limbaugh was back to his old track telling Republicans vote Obama in Mississippi. And from March 1, mass media dropped the word Obamacan as if it had never ever been used. Such complete coordination of mainstream media with the lunatic conservative radio host is evidence of concert of the kind once Lincoln discovered. Nowadays the operation ought to be watched through lens of RICO. Organized crime.
The game played with so called exit polls was horrible. Relentless repetition of how the cross over voters split according to exit polls became an insult to human intelligence. Americans ought to be sorry if any super delegate, any of the Party Leaders and Elected Officers believed the fiction of exit polls that nine million Republicans cross over and go through all the labor only to split between two democratic candidates equally and thus nullify the effect of their votes.
Until March 1, until Rush warning, 70% of crossovers were freely confessing that they voted for Obama. After Rush warning, that percentage was reduced to 50%.
But mass media put an amazing spin on replies of primary raiders. Mass media propagated that before march 1, non democrats split 70 to 30 for Obama but that after Rush operation chaos they split 50 to 50. Shills on all blogs started fake debates on whether this meant Rush had made a difference.
But what happened with confessions of raiders to exit pollsters is this: all of them having voted for the client of Axelrod, in February 30% only of the cross over voters were lying to exit pollsters. In March 50% lied to exit pollster. Look at the unintended implication: as if these conservatives were absolute fools canceling out their so valuable chaos votes. Fact is from beginning to end all raiders voted for client of Axelrod. Operation chaos never was about a change in the color of their votes. It is about their reply to exit pollsters. Any dittohead knows that. When Rush says vote Clinton, it means nothing but this: tell pollsters you voted Clinton. This gives the fifth column among party leaders to put pressure on un-pledged delegates to tilt to the other side.
Nine million republicans, card carrying and independent, voted for Obama. That determined a quarter of the total pledged delegates. You can unseat them here. A similar thing was done to Republican Party in 1952 to nominate Robert Taft against Eisenhower and cause defeat of the party.
Republican Convention of 1952 possessed the wisdom of unseating the stolen delegates and thus managed to nominate a winner ticket instead of a loser. Taft campaign was accused of stealing delegate votes in those States which in 2008 are the same red states who gave delegates to client of Axelrod. Operation Fair Play unseated the stolen delegates. At the time, these deceptive neo conservatives had the Democratic party under their control and they were working for defeat of Republican party by giving it a loser for candidate.
Wikipedia: When the 1952 Republican National Convention opened in Chicago, most political experts rated Taft and Eisenhower as neck-and-neck in the delegate vote totals. Eisenhower's managers, led by Governor Dewey and Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., accused Taft of "stealing" delegate votes in Southern states such as Texas and Georgia. They claimed that Taft's leaders in these states had illegally refused to give delegate spots to Eisenhower supporters and put Taft delegates in their place. Lodge and Dewey proposed to evict the pro-Taft delegates in these states and replace them with pro-Eisenhower delegates; they called this proposal "Fair Play". Although Taft and his supporters angrily denied this charge, the convention voted to support Fair Play 658 to 548, and Taft lost many Southern delegates; this decided the nomination in Eisenhower's favor. However, the mood at the convention was one of the most bitter and emotional in American history; in one speech Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, a Taft supporter, pointed at Governor Dewey on the convention floor and accused him of leading the Republicans "down the road to defeat", and mixed boos and cheers rang out from the delegates. In the end Eisenhower took the nomination on the first ballot; to heal the wounds caused by the battle he went to Taft's hotel suite and met with him.
Black votes for Obama are innocent of the plot. Blacks were made victims of an elaborate deception. Had Obama not been available, Axelrod in concert with Rove would do the same with Bill Richardson and Hispanic votes. Hispanic districts of Texas would be given seven delegates each but black districts only three. Hispanic voters would then become victims of an elaborate deception, unintentionally becoming instruments of the ruin of Democratic Party and by consequence the prolongation of wars of aggression abroad. Now the black voters are manipulated into this position. Black lawmakers in the Congress resisted the manipulation until the mass media created pressure became irresistible. Had media not suppressed voice of black members of the congress, any client of Axelrod would just be ignored by the black voters.
Such elaborate deception can only be defeated by collective wisdom of the nation. It is too overwhelming for any small group of dedicated good men. But collective wisdom of the nation can not be articulated because mass media is partial to the deception. In this all important nomination race the intricate web of deception proved overwhelming for best brains of Democrats, Kennedy, Carter and Clintons as we saw unfolding from January to June. In 2006 Clinton was without rival in all the national polls and therefore subtle changes in rules and bylaws escaped proper review: rules that would make all the difference in January and February of 2008. Only if democrats had instead of all those wedge issue policy positions this one principle: you shall not make unnecessary rules. Only with such a principle ingrained could Democrats prevent those subtle changes introducing caucuses in place of primaries and differing allocation of delegates to Black and Hispanic majority districts, and taking two big states out of the race, could be objected to even before those rules appeared in their full bloom. After the fact it is of course too late. Shills on all blogs ere already positioned to pump garbage like same rules for all and why did Clinton not object to the rules earlier. Rules made by architects of elaborate deception are never the same for all parties. It is a marvel that the Rules and Bylaws committee did not make a rule like - all super delegates whose family names start with three consonants have thirty votes each. Without an absolute position against all unnecessary rules irrespective of all the appearance of neutrality, democrats would let the rule pass and then on convention floor it would turn out that all such names vote against Clinton. Irreversible damage is done and shills chorus their mantra: rules are rules and they are the same for all sides. But they are not. The architects of deception know in advance if they will use a Black or a Hispanic nominee to steal the nomination process and then lose the general election. Accordingly they allocate seven delegates to the Black or Hispanic majority districts of Texas where they also bring the rule of division by district instead of division by state. The other districts get three delegates allocated to each. These are the rules and they do have the appearance of being the same for both sides, but they are not. Those who claim these rules are the same for both sides in fact betray themselves to be part of a fifth column.
Lacking untainted media, you still had a channel to the collective wisdom of the nation. It was the ballot box: three quarters of democrats who voted in the primaries voted Clinton and that is the message nearest to collective wisdom of the nation. But the elaborate deception managed to muddy this fact. If only State party chairs would segregate three colors of polling stations, one for Democrats, one for Independents and one for crossovers, the grand deception with a hundred concerted tricks, would have failed. You would know undiluted vote of Democrats. That simple it was. Pollsters thus acquired the authority of becoming sole interpreters of how the nation voted. And pollsters are just guys with a job working for someone we don't really know.
You can this evening find out unequivocally if three quarters of the democratic base wish to nominate Clinton. Call in a hundred of the oldest Denver Democrats. Attach two witnesses to each to attest. Pick by lot one hundred districts from all over America. Printout lists of first hundred Democrats in these districts. Put the list of hundred names of each far off district on table for one Denver elder. In two hours you have the results: Clinton or Obama. You will see they split 75 to 25 for Clinton. If there yet remains a delegate in doubt, let each Denver elder call another hundred democrats of the district entrusted to him, and then a third hundred and a fourth hundred until even the fifth column among the party leaders and elected officers cannot object further.
Democratic base wants to nominate Clinton because collective wisdom of the base says Clinton is sure winner while any client of Axelrod is a sure loser, be he Black or Hispanic, Irish or Italian, Catholic or Moslem, male or female, gay or straight, pro-life or pro-choice, partial-birth or post-birth, stem cell or global warming...
Details are muddied but totals are undisputable: 20 million voted Republican ballot, 36 million voted Democratic ballot. Half the difference is raider votes. It is political suicide to ignore this and go ahead to worst defeat of Democrats ever.
With Obama, democrats lose the General election 30 to 70.
Clinton/Obama ticket reduces the democratic vote to 51 to 49 and with such close margins, electronic voting machines play havoc. Diebold takes over. You need big margins. Obama/Clinton ticket loses 49 to 51.
Any Democratic ticket with Axelrod's client on it still wins with 51% if the Democratic National Convention votes for and announces the following: Obama campaign personnel including staff of Daschle has been dismissed; in case of a Democratic victory in November, the cabinet will be as follows...; party position is suspended on all wedge issues without exception including abortion, gay, stem cell, anti-smoking, global warming, tariffs, national bank, amalgamation, protestant succession and other specious phrases invented to delude a whole nation. Constitution knows only two genders and therefore all laws pertaining to a third gender are probably null and void for as long as a third gender can not be brought into the constitution with an amendment and if this is not so every university of the Republic ought to come out and declare its position. The party has no bigoted position and needs to claim none.
With Clinton ticket, Democrats win the general election 60 to 40.
Clinton/Cynthia McKinney ticket wins 70 to 30.
Clinton/Wesley Clark ticket wins 65 to 35.
Clinton/Denzel Washington ticket wins 60 to 40.
Clinton/Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr. ticket wins 60 to 40.
Clinton/Michael Moore ticket wins 55 to 45.
Independent ticket of Cynthia McKinney wins 55% if endorsed by Kennedy, Carter and Clintons and a democratic cabinet announced. Wins with even bigger margins if attacked by Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Dean. Even bigger margins if perchance attacked by Lieberman. Loss of some margin if endorsed by any of these.
Independent ticket of Clinton wins 60%. Republicans get 25% hard core psychopaths and Democrat candidate of Axelrod gets the remaining 15%.
Cable Guy on Democratic ticket wins with 51% against Republicans on condition that he not be a client of Axelrod and not be supported by staff of Daschle, and not be endorsed by Gore and Kerry nor by Pelosi and Dean.
This Convention can voice vote to put on probation all party leaders who pressed for Clinton to give up early. These people aided the elaborate deception that is about to convert the Democratic party into Neo-Liberals as they converted the Republican party into Neo-Conservatives. Same resources, similar methods.
This Convention can vote down from positions of responsibility all who pushed for loser candidates in the previous two elections, all who supported conversion of the primary states into caucus states, all who prevented adoption of the Winner Take All rule for delegate allocation.
In 1952 the unseating of stolen delegates from red states allowed Icke/Nixon ticket to compete in the general election; implications have been more immense than ever realized. At the time the Slave power of red states had control of the Democratic party. Had the stolen delegates managed to nominate Robert Taft and so give the election again to Democratic party of that time, the Korean war would escalate into the third world war. The blue prints were ready, the stocks were sold, the press was squared and the middle class quiet prepared.
In 1952 Republican Convention became the platform on which the third world war was prevented. Unseating of the stolen delegates prevented the third world war.
In 2008 Democratic Convention is the platform on which the third world war may be prevented. Unseating of the stolen delegates prevents the third world war again.
Preventing of a world war is the most ungrateful job in the world since the world will not come thanking you for it because the world can not realize how close it was and therefore it is the most satisfying thing there ever was for those who love that sort of service to mankind.
In 1952 Eisenhower's campaign managers, led by Governor Dewey and Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., accused Taft of "stealing" delegate votes in Southern states such as Texas and Georgia. By unseating those stolen delegates, Governor Dewey and Senator Lodge and delegates who voted with them prevented the third world war. Icke/Nixon ticket won the general election and at once terminated the Korean war; and in the eight years of this ticket no other war was started by the United States of America. Poor France was next choice of those demons defeated in the Republican Convention of 1952. They shifted resources to drag France into Vietnam quagmire because they must drag someone.
This Convention may go into history as the platform on which a world war was prevented. It is up to you. You have the choice between speaking up now or remaining silent forever. What say you?
b. Garbled message of Primaries
Mass media scripture quoting devil like admonished you to not overturn the popular wish and hundred sixty of your own rank echoed the warning leaving you speechless.
You need to know what the popular wish is before you can respect it. You need to get the right message before you can do the right thing in Lexington and Concord. Two silversmiths wake you up in small hours of the night one saying the Hessians are coming and the other saying as loudly or lauder the British are going; you need to know which silversmith is for real before you act. But you already know one thing from this commotion; that the conflicting messages are business unusual and you better take steps also unusual for thy doom is in business as usual; that you better not go back to sleep; you better prepare for the worst.
False messenger appears as self confident as the real messenger or more so because propagation of falsehood is a fine art which conveying of truth is not. A few contradictions here and there do not perturb the spreaders of falsehood; like, if the British are going and not coming, surely this message could wait till morning.
You are lost if you fail to separate false clauses skillfully embedded into an otherwise genuine message. A reproducing cell does ill to the whole body if it reproduces the virus also ingeniously embedded.
Corrupters of messages, viral or human alike, defy identification. They simulate and dissimulate skillfully. If not identified in time their success is as assured as your failure.
What was the popular wish in these primaries?
For three nominees of the Republican party voted twenty million citizens. Ten million votes for the first and ten for the next two.
for two nominees of the Democratic party voted thirty-six million citizens. One half for each.
Assuming genuine partisans of both parties interested in the nomination process to be roughly equal give or take a million or two, a quarter of the thirty six million voters in the Democratic primaries are card carrying and other partisans of the rival party.
Of course you are not sure of that but can you tell us why you are unsure? Ballots are about counting, about knowing exact numbers of the voters for and against. But you are not sure. The assumption is bold. You don't have the exact figures. You don't have the exact message. This by itself is the first sign that the message has been tampered with. In some states every voter who had not been a registered Democrat but wished to express a preference for a nominee, has been put on record; you can have name, address and all. But even in such states the color of the actual vote in the voting booth remains secret. You are left to infer actual preferences from how many non democrats went in and how many votes for each nominee came out of a polling station.
You have division for nominees by poll stations but you don't have division for party members and raid voters. You don't know if only one quarter of native democrats voted for the one nominee and three quarters of native democrats voted for the other nominee. You don't know what the party base knows by walking the streets and knowing their neighbors. You do not know from ballot results.
Party Leaders and Elected Officers don't have the official and verifiable figures. You do not have the unadulterated message, the popular vote, the public wish. What the majority of Democratic party members desired you do not know.
Besides there is this other source that tells the world what the message is and this telling presented in form of figures has an appearance much superior, more reliable than what the party base says. You get two opposite readings of what was but one and the same message; except one reading has semblance of numbers while the other looks like a great number of anecdotes.
Anecdotes can be counted and become statistics but they won't be counted if you don't count them.
Someone just out of a polling booth may tell you for whom he voted; I might not tell but some do. Some tell it truthfully and some deceptively. You don't know how many of each there are. Each answer is anecdotal at best. But someone counts 1003 of these miserable anecdotes, reduces ayes and nays into percentages, attaches a silly plus or minus three points error margin, omits the raw number of them, and runs back to his employer. The thing is done. Another reading is put on a most important message we just received but could not read. The boys from Chaos spread their reading of what you could not read even with the help of a million election officers. And this new reading is repeated by national networks till it became the only possible reading. You become incapable of conceiving anything else.
After much art and no science you are in the end supposed to know with calamitous certainty that the message says: exit Pharaoh go poll my people to let Moses go! After this giant step it is but a small step to conclude what a freak radio show master really wants, and what his freak listeners really do when they hear what he says; you miss his wink.
The rest is... well I hope not yet. Not if I find words for...
I will not talk any further about this other supposed source of policy guidance because pretty soon there is going to be two more dirty words: exit polls. These will join ranks of other dirty words of the near future: momentum and Iowa, hope and change, patriot and homeland...
All non democrats who vote for a nominee are on record in some states but in other states they are not. End effect is that you do not know for certain which of the two eighteen million voting blocks contains in it the nine million card carrying and other partisans of the rival party.
Here is the trickiest point of this business: you cannot say these nine million votes are spoiler votes. Repetition since January has added to your articles of faith that you cannot know their motive being evil. But you can. You know that only half the nation, half of the registered voters, vote in general elections. You also know that in quiet years about ten percent of the electorate attends primaries. This is not a quiet year. This is a junction year a fateful turning point beyond which none can tell what lurks. In this year above a quarter of the electorate attended primaries because stakes are high. An all time record.
But still a quarter of electors voted means three quarters did not. Three quarters wished not to make a choice between the nominees of the party near half of them will vote for come November. That is as it should be. If I am fed up with the Republican party and firmly decided on voting Democrat in November, I do not go tell democrats who they should nominate. I do not go to their primaries to pick a presidential candidate for them leaving the rest of the ticket for State and local officers as if I don't care. If I were fed up with voting Republican in the general election, I would of course vote Democrat in November but I would stay away from Democratic nomination process.
Every non democrat who sincerely means to vote democrat in November is among the three quarters of eligible citizens who did not attend the primaries. They will vote in November for the party candidate.
Every non democrat who voted in primaries is a spoiler vote and the sum of them is nine million and it is mixed somewhere in either or both of the eighteen million voting blocks.
Here is the need to separate a virus from the cell; here is the need to identify spoiler clauses grafted into a true message; here is the need to recognize which night riding silver smith is the real thing. In retrospect you know of course that Paul Revere had the right message; but you know not how the patriots of Lexington and Concord recognized the correct message from among the many false ones; Tory falsifications were all around them repeated in every gathering place night after night till people went to sleep. You don't know how many Tories pointed at Paul and accused him of lying. You do not know how patriots recognized those accusers for actual liars. You do not know why Paul Revere was believed, why Tories who accused him were not believed. You do not know because these tales are not in the text books any more. A future generation will not know Paul Revere. Another will know neither Lexington nor Concord. And another generation will believe the words give me liberty or give me death were made up by a Tory biographer of Patrick Henry whose relatives became cruelest slave breeders. There is no limit to perfidy, no bar to spoliation of national heritage by precisely those whose ancestors had collaborated with the enemy of the nation.
But here and today there is a thing you need to know with certainty and do not know: where are those nine million spoiler votes.
Are the nine million spoiler votes all in the first block as giver and receiver proudly proclaimed throughout the month of February? Are they half of the Obama votes?
Are the nine million spoiler votes all in the second block as giver and receiver coyly and defensively confessed throughout the month of March? Are they half of the Clinton votes?
Are these nine million split between your two blocks canceling out as the pundits have been claiming with mathematical certainties adorned with cock and bull margins of error?
You have here three distinctly different messages where the genuine message has been but one. There was one popular wish expressed by the people who attended the primaries and will vote Democratic in November. The message sent was one. But when this message arrived and you read it, you read in three different ways because it has been soiled and spoiled on the way. The spoliation allowed three readings of what we know had been but one clear and distinct message. Three quarters of democratic base nominated a candidate and you do not know whom.
Three different readings of the same message must produce three different factions regarding what action to take. It is wonderful that the Party leaders and Elected Officers did indeed divide into three factions; those who endorsed the first 18 million votes, those who endorsed the second 18 million votes and those who remained uncommitted.
But of course knowing is an art. It is not a science. What we cannot know for a while, we can come to know suddenly. What was not knowable yesterday can become so today even without new data. For some reason some sight some noise stirs a lulled area of our perception and we suddenly know what we held for unknowable. Once we know, we see possibilities of action we would have thought undoable.
c. A Mental Test
noquarterusa.net Comment by rjj | 2008-06-07 13:46:55 Chuck Todd of MSNBC is a consummate idiot. He is already trying to say that Hillary must work harder for her supporters for Obama. Seems to be a talking point. Everybody is saying that. It is a poke in the eye (a Rove specialty ... but so many things are so very Rovian about the whole campaign - particularly the thoroughness. Dems don't do detail).
Taylor Marsh Blogs: I'm telling you, there is some fvcked up shyt going on. Maybe the DNC leaders are all addicted to oxycodone or something, or drinking the blood of innocent children. Who the hell knows? Shtuey | 05.09.2008 - 02:53 am That is the truest thing I've heard in a while! I keep clicking my heels together but I still haven't made it back to reality. sarnold51 | 05.09.2008 - 02:57 am
APA having been subverted long before the political parties, let us become our own psychiatrists. Let us do a mental test.
I ask ONE question and you write on a piece of paper in friendly capital letters YES or NO. Sign it with your name please. Consider you are answering the day after mid term election of 2006.
Question: State of Texas was primary pure in 2000 and in 2004. No caucuses, not a caucus anywhere nor for any number of delegates. Shall we change the rule now and introduce caucuses for a third of the delegates, YES or NO?
I can tell you from here, just looking at 800 Party leaders and Elected Officers, that the number of YES answers is less than 160. It is in fact around 80 plus minus ten.
640 of you answered No. 640 of you meant, if Texas was primary last two elections, leave it primary; what the heck do you wish caucuses for? If you got a problem with secret vote and open count, Jim, Alexis, you two shouldn't be in the Democratic party anyway.
These 640 super delegates are sincere.
Another 80 answered No, but let me tell you the worst the soonest. They are not sincere. There is among you this 160 who will split in their answer to any question in early stages but move in unison from inside three factions when push comes to shove ... you know. You ought to know these talented players. But how are you to know them? Aye, that is the question on which parties have gone bad.
Where are the Federalists, once party of Hamilton... where are the Whigs? Where is the Republican-Democratic party of Jefferson and Monroe?... Where is the Republican party of Lincoln and Nixon? Why are the honest citizens last 34 years confined to the Democratic Party, once the party of Slave power? They are gone down the drain because the art of detecting and expelling a fifth columns remains undiscovered.
Let me do the mental test more thoroughly for the purpose of pioneering this art. The single question test did not bring out one half of the fifth column among the Party leaders and elected officers. Eighty fifth columnists undiscovered destroy all effectiveness of the 640 sincere leaders and elected officers. A ten question test will smoke out the fifth column.
I ask ten questions and you write on a piece of paper in big friendly capital letters again YES or NO for each number. sign it with your names please. The date is August 25, 2008. Consider you are answering day after mid term election of 2006.
Question One: Texas was primary pure in the two previous presidential elections. Not caucus. Not a caucus anywhere nor for any number of delegates. Shall we change the rule and introduce caucuses for a third of the delegates, YES or NO?
Question Two: Shall we allocate delegates per senatorial district not equal but according to number of Democratic votes in the mid term election of 2006, YES or NO?
Question Three: if such allocation gives black majority districts seven delegates each but to Hispanic majority districts three delegates each, shall we just leave it so, YES or NO?
Question Four: now that we are agreed on proportional allocation of delegates instead of Winner Take All, shall we deviate from division statewide and do a division per district in Texas, YES or NO?
Question Five: though Republicans have statewide Winner Take All rule, shall we stick to our proportional delegate allocation rule without a debate, YES or NO?
Question Six: though Republicans have the same penalty of half vote for primaries before February 5 and apply it to all (five ) states, shall we deviate from it and declare penalty of zero vote for those states, YES or NO?
Question Seven: though Republicans have the same penalty of half vote for primaries before February 5 and apply it to all (five) states, shall we pardon three small states by giving them so called permission but punish two large states to which we somehow do not give permission, YES or NO?
Question Eight: should we leave undiscovered who made it so that three small states were given permission but two large states were not given permission, YES or NO?
Question Nine: should we allow our Rules and Bylaws Committee to make rules for actions of Republican Legislature and governor of Florida without asking why this committee does not also make rules for the Russian Legislature for the violation of which Democrats of Alaska are to be punished, YES or NO?
Question Ten: Should we leave it uninvestigated if our Rules and Bylaws Committee co-chair had been coordinating their deeds with the infamous strategist of the rival party, YES or NO?
Thank you for the answers.
Let the these answers be counted by eight witnesses from the somewhat scantily populated American Hall of Character: two decent Reps, Rick Santorum and D'Amato; two honest Dems, McKinney and Richardson; four respectable outsiders; the wronged Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the self exiled author Gore Vidal, the bold Amy Goodman of Democracy Now and the venerable Chomsky.
640 voted a straight NO ticket. NO to all ten questions. No, don't go tempering with primary and caucus rules. No, don't go redistricting Texas, no, don't give seven delegates to black districts against three delegates to Hispanic districts of Texas. No, do not allocate a third of Texas delegates to caucuses. No, don't make rules for governor of Florida who is not under your jurisdiction. No, No, No... Jim, Alexis, don't do it. Let well alone, let primaries remain, do not introduce caucuses anywhere but Iowa and if you are really worried about nomination dragging too long then why don't you just adopt the Winner Take All rule as the republicans have it...
160 among Democratic Party Leaders and Elected Officers voted mixed ticket; some questions get Yes, some get No. Look at the Pelosis; both voted mixed tickets; some yes some no. But they are complementary. A Yes on Pelosi Sr. ballot is a No on Pelosi Jr. ballot. A corollary test would be interesting here if the Pelosis would cooperate but they wont. The test we cannot conduct is this: asking them to answer the same ten questions again. It would be curious to see if the Yes and No answers changed places on both their ballots but still remained complementary between mother and daughter. Had this test been possible, psychiatrists of the world would have something to ponder upon for a generation or two.
160 gave mixed answers; but these 160 among Party leaders and elected officers split eighty to eighty on every one of the ten questions. They don't agree among themselves on any one question.
Kerry and Lieberman answers are complementary just like Mother and daughter Pelosi; Every Yes from the one is a No from the other.
Jim Roosevelt and Herman Alexis, co-chair of Rules and Bylaws, even they do not agree in their ten Yeses and ten Nos. What a fifth column, what a declining art. John Adams and John Jay were much better at it.
Same thing for Dean and Reid. They have managed to agree on monstrosities like Texas caucuses and allocated seven delegates to Black districts of Texas against three to Hispanic districts but in their ten answers they disagree as if they were not of the same mind on some things.
It would be interesting if there came a Lincoln now and forced equivocal issues to decision, push came to shove and this Democratic Party split here and now, the South going of course with candidate who won the red caucuses, the North going with the candidate who won those three primaries in which the spoilers had no interest for two different reasons. Spoilers had no interest in the January Primaries of Florida and Michigan because spoilers are very legalistic minded. Rules and Bylaws committee of the Democratic Party is sacred to these republicans who have such lively interest in Democratic nominations. Its rulings immutable in their minds and the rulers of those rules infallible. Only genuine Democrats cast ballots in those two annulled primaries in contempt of DNC including Rules and Bylaws Committee RBC co-chair Alexis Herman and Jim Roosevelt.
In the end when you can not read the message coming out of all the other states because of spoiler pollution defying measurement, those maligned primaries become voice of truth from the desert. And Puerto Rico of course. Laud and clear is the message from Puerto Rico, last of primaries, because spoilers don't live there in numbers. The atmosphere of Puerto Rico does not agree with the evangelical Clannish Slave power, our Tories. Hispanic TV of Puerto Rico filters the fake momentum clamor that needed only ninety thousand votes in IOWA to start rolling in contempt of millions of Florida and Michigan.
Thus we have two January primaries clean from spoilers and one June primary; the earliest and the latest.
If a Lincoln rose and rejected compromise and forced issues to a division better now than later, Southern Democrats of the caucus red states should go with their candidate; Northern Democrats would go with the Candidate preferred in third, fifth and last primaries that attracted no spoilers.
Back in 1860 there was a Lincoln. two halves of the split party lost in a three way election but they would not give up.
Now, if ran independent, candidate of the three unspoiled primaries would get 60 percent in the general election. People happen to like the choice of an unspoiled primary and are vary of results from spoiled caucuses in red states.
Remaining 40 percent would split between candidate of Southern caucus democrats and Republican who is not Abraham but Cain. Probably Cain will get the 25% hard core psychopaths. That will leave 15% to the candidate of southern caucuses.
But in 1860 the Democratic party might not split for the general election. The Northern party might be able to expel the Slave power without splitting the party. After all Slave power, with all the extreme legalistic mind set, was still the sly criminal element and if properly investigated, might be convicted for crimes. Because those framed timbers Lincoln describes did not come without criminal doings in the back ground. Soon as Dred Scott ruling came out of that Supreme Court, people of perception surely recognized a criminal under layer; you don't get such Judges into Supreme court by not interfering in the previous decades, by not twisting arms, by not blackmailing alternative candidates; there is always murder in the previous decade of such framed timbers coming together. There are secret meetings, secret fund transfers even from abroad, secret doings galore and every one of these things is criminal. Reason they escape justice is that offices which ought to see these things are precisely those offices infiltrated first. Rules and Bylaws Committees.
d. Winner Take All:
Perhaps you know not that the very same thirty-six million votes, including nine million spoilers and all, cast from January to June that gave Obama about 150 delegate margin under the rule of proportional allocation, the very same votes give Clinton 600 delegate margin under the rule of Winner Take All as Republican Party have it. Same republic, same voters, same votes and yet rule maker decides if one nominee is 150 delegates ahead or on the contrary the other nominee is 600 delegates ahead. Perhaps you do not see the foot prints of Karl Rove outside the window of RBC, Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee. Good for your sanity if you don’t. But perhaps your sanity is not worth much if you let psychopaths with an unnatural aptitude for rule manipulation to sink the Republic.
Republican party has statewide Winner Take All rule for delegates of many states. This is why Republican nominee collected enough delegates so soon.
A certain type of DNC leaders started fussing about the race taking too long and hurting the party. Their remedy was to put pressure on the nominee who was one percent behind to give up. The one percent was not a fair and undisputed lead. It was artificially produced by spoiler votes and by nullifying the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan. Yet this group pressed relentlessly.
To protect the party from destruction was their rally to the flag. You would expect these people so desirous of an early conclusion of the Democratic race would have previously proposed to adopt the Winner Take All rule which Republicans have. The bet is they never raised the issue. They invented so many rules and made so many changes to the Democratic nomination since the last election but never did they suggest that Winner Take All rule of republicans ought to be adopted for a speedy conclusion of the race. Never.
Do not think they found it beneath their dignity to adopt republican rules. They did adopt others. For example the introduction of caucuses into states where there were none.
In 1996 both parties had primaries only in every state except Iowa. No caucuses anywhere else. Look at the bizarre picture that ensues for states beside Iowa in the following elections. The thing is unbelievable. And it is done with utmost low profile. Bloggers are under the impression that these horrible caucuses have been in place since a long time and they should be abolished. To the contrary the monstrosities have only recently been introduced to replace the traditional primaries.
In 2000 Republican party suddenly has caucuses in three more states. And Republican nominee Mr. Bush has his biggest victories against Mr. McCain in those newly introduced three caucus states.
In 2000 Democratic party still has no caucuses beside Iowa because there is no reason on earth for introducing them in place of primaries.
In 2004 Republicans have increased the caucus states to fifteen. That year candidacy of Bush is assured and therefore Karl Rove does not need them. So why does he increase the number? To provide cover for Democratic rule makers. To provide the camouflage so people wont notice something strange in Democratic party converting 20 primaries into caucuses for no visible reason especially when republicans have only three. In 2004 Democratic Primaries of 20 states or territories are made caucuses; including Michigan and Puerto Rico. But Texas is still primary as it always was.
In 2008 Democratic party rule makers make some more changes. Puerto Rico, Michigan and some island territories are changed back from caucus to primary. But Texas or rather a third of Texas delegates are detached from the primary and are made subject to caucuses.
Texas case is a real give away because it invalidates the lame excuse of caucuses being cheaper. Texas Primary is paid for any way. Texas case has a second give away. It provides definitive proof for the claim that caucuses can be hijacked. When in the same state, with the same democratic voters, one nominee wins the primary but the other wins the caucus, and the difference is no less than 16 points, you know at once that the caucus has been hijacked. Texas case has a third give away. You point at its message as meaning that the caucus has been hijacked and you wait for the response from responsible people. Those who counteract this conclusion with its opposite, those who claim that more likely the primary has been hijacked while the caucus has expressed true vote of the state democrats, those are the psychopaths next door, the sociopath among you. To expose these masters of disguise, this fifth column among Democrats is the biggest benefit of the Texas caucus done in parallel to the Texas primary.
Now that you know caucuses were introduced first by the republicans in 2000 and later imitated by Democratic rule makers in 2004, think of those who in March came out in panic and agitated for one of the nominees to give up because prolonging the race would damage the party. Think if they were sincere. Think if they were what they appeared to be. Think if their real motive is not to damage the Democratic party and make it go through a crushing defeat in November and then be taken over by the fifth column which by next elections will be called Neo-Libs, and bloggers will tire of listing its similarities to Neo-cons: same glazed eyes, same fanatical cliché parrots, same intolerance, harshness, shrillness, same cult like demonstrations, foaming, fainting as at faith healing shows.
Think of these people and wonder why they never wanted to adopt the rule of Winner Takes all the delegates.
Here is why they were in dread of that rule. Here is how in these primaries and caucuses neither the voters nor the vote counters but the rule makers have decided the outcome.
If Winner of a state takes all the delegates of that state, if that were the rule adopted by Democratic rule makers just as Republicans have it, the results would be as follows. Think the most repeated mantra of these nominations, think where momentum pundits would be if this were the rule.
Winner Take All Democratic delegate allocation: with the existing vote count.
January:
HC takes 335 delegates of NH, MI, FL, all primaries
BO takes 115 delegates of IO, NV, SC all caucuses except SC with large black population.
See where the real momentum is. The momentum we have been hearing about was created by no more than 90 thousand votes in IO for BO. Just 90 thousand for Obama against 70 thousand for Clinton. Momentum. Nothing compared to millions of Florida and Michigan.
February 5:
HC takes 1028 delegates of AS, AZ, AR, CA, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OK, TN. All primaries except Samoa and NM.
BO takes 687 delegates of AL, CT, DE, GA, IL, MO, UT primaries and
AK, CO, ID, KA, MN, ND, caucuses
Why could the Samoa caucus not be hijacked? No Rush ditto heads there, no confederate slave power, no neo cons. A handful would be enough to hijack the caucus but they lacked.
Why could the New Mexico caucus not be hijacked? Because it was caucus in name only. Thanks to the vice chair of state party the caucus was conducted very decently. The cult caravan of zealots had no opportunity of hijacking it.
Wonder why Illinois and Utah were not caucuses? Because there was no need to hijack there. For different reasons. In every one of these primaries, a factor was at hand making it possible to subvert the democratic votes. Either black voters were in big numbers or Klan voters. What an alliance of the chicken and the fox.
Imagine these caucuses and primaries were fixed sometime in 2006 when BO was not yet in the picture for the democratic base. But Rove had it all planned. Had BO not compromised himself possibly by purchase of that Chicago house for 1.6 million dollars, then Rove might pick Bill Richardson for victor of nomination and loser of November. In that case, all states with substantial Hispanic population would be made primaries but other states would be made caucuses to hijack.
Feb 9 to 19:
HC takes zero delegates.
BO takes 454 delegates of LA, Dems Abroad, DC, MD, VA, WI primaries and NE, VI, WA, ME, HA caucuses.
Karl Rove had it easy: where large numbers of blacks vote, let it remain primary as before. Where this is not the case, make it caucus to be hijacked by mobile cult caravans trained in the summer of 2007.
March:
HC takes 481 delegates of OH, RI, TX primaries.
BO takes 115 delegates of VT, MS, primaries and WY, ND, CO, caucuses.
Why Vermont, though New England, was left a primary? Because Dean was sure he could deliver it. And MS must have enough black votes to delude.
April:
HC takes 158 delegates of PA primary
BO takes 4 delegates of Guam caucus or convention.
May:
HC takes 151 delegates of IN, WV, KY primaries
BO takes 180 delegates of NC, OR primaries and AK convention or caucus.
June:
HC takes 70 delegates of PR and SD primaries
BO takes 16 delegates of MT primary.
HC took 20 primaries and 2 Caucuses
BO took 18 primaries and 18 caucuses.
How are the cumulative totals by each month? How goes the momentum from January to June every month?
BO cumulative: 115, 802, 1256, 1371, 1375, 1555, 1571
HC cumulative: 335, 1363, 1363, 1844, 2002, 2153, 2223
How many delegates is the lead margin of HC by end of every month?
220 561 107 473 627 598 652
And that is real momentum. 2223 pledged delegates for HC with margin of 652 in June. That is really the popular endorsement, the public vote which super delegates cannot overturn because their number is less than the margin. Because nomination is decided before the super delegates vote. In this picture, there is no need to play psychology with super delegates week after weak from February to June.
Friends, take good note. These are results of these same votes that were cast from January to June in those same states by those same rules, fair or foul, sincere or spoiler. Same rules except one; this is the result if just one rule is otherwise: instead of proportional allocation of delegates, this is the result if the rule is winner take all per state. It is not a wild rule, a wild fantasy. It is not an utopia since it is the rule of republicans in many states. It is not a rule to have been rejected out of hand if the present DNC sincerely cared for an early conclusion of the nomination process as they have been claiming from March to June. It is the rule they ought to have adopted most naturally. The very same votes cast from January to June produce 600 delegates margin for Clinton if the rule is winner take all. The very same votes produce under 200 delegate margin for Obama if winner take all is not the rule. Truly this time neither voters nor vote counters have chosen a candidate: rule makers have decided the outcome. All that is missing to complete the case for RICO is a whistleblower to come out with tape of a meeting between Democratic Rule makers and Republican strategist.
From the results of that rule you see why this DNC did not adopt this rule of winner take all. But you also see that rule makers have decided the candidate, not the voters, not even the spoiler voters.
There might still be an excuse for them; they might claim that a prolonged nomination all the way to the convention is good for the party; it is good publicity, it energizes the party base for the general election. But DNC top brass threw away that excuse in March when they came out putting pressure on un-pledged delegates to become pledged quickly lest prolonged race divide the party. Had this fear been sincere, the obvious solution of it would be winner take all as the republican party has it.
There was no excuse for forcing the pledged delegates to take sides before the convention. That was done and with complicity of mass media, monstrosity of the request was smoothed out; it was tantamount to saying Puerto Rico should not wait till June to vote; an absurd demand.
Every one of the top brass that publicly warned unpledged delegates not to dare to overturn the popular wish might with equal injustice request that Puerto Rico should not overturn the popular wish of those 90 thousand voters in Iowa who voted BO. In fact, they might with equal gravity, given media complicity, claim that once 90 thousand of Iowa voted for BO, no states afterwards should overturn this popular demand. Every subsequent state should respect the popular wish of the previous one. In essence this would mean the first three voters of Iowa decide the race and no voter after them should overturn the result of the first three voters of Iowa. No words are sufficient to highlight the absurdity: it is like saying the first three voting Americans decide the race and voting must stop right there because subsequent voters would be overturning the wish of earliest majority.
e. Miracle of IOWA
momentum of 90,000 votes
Take a closer look at Iowa. Look at it from a year before January of 2008. There is an anomaly there. It is the Rovian singularity essential for the momentum.
National polls from January of 2005 to January of 2008 show Clinton as sole victor for 2008. Always above 50%. The next Democrat is at single digits, be it Gore or Kerry in 2006 or Edwards in 2007. So the national polls, but not so Iowa polls. In Iowa Clinton is not top candidate. Polls show BO ahead of Clinton. Take note this is Iowa, not Illinois. Why should Democrats of Iowa from January of 2007 go for BO? And when the voting day arrives, in January of 2008, BO gets 90,000 votes in Iowa caucuses. It is done. Media has its staple talking point: momentum... there is no stopping...
Iowa could be on the same list as Florida and Michigan, and declared null and void. Rules and Bylaws committee could easily do that. No big deal and would deserve no big fuss because in 2008 January Iowa caucus compares to Florida primary thus:
Iowa: 2 million eligible voters; 236,000 voted Democrat; 119,000 voted Rep. Turnout 16%.
Florida: 12.5 million eligible voters; 1.7 million voted Democrat; 1.9 m voted Rep. Turnout 34%.
Democrat votes in Florida are eight times Iowa.
In fact Dem votes in Florida and Michigan are 2.3 million while Dem votes of all other states voting in January are under 1.2 million.
Total eligible voters of Florida and Michigan are 20 million while those of all other January states add to under ten million. These are the numbers behind the Rovian momentum strategy: take Florida and Michigan out of the picture; a thing impossible without bipartisan underhand cooperation. Could not be done without coordination between RBC of Democrats and Florida Governor Charles Crist of Republicans.
But let us look closer at what has happened in Iowa.
First point is the difference between 236 K voted Dem and 119 K voted Rep. Why the difference? No perfect spin possible so this was just passed over by the media. Had there been no Rovian singularity in Iowa, there would be no reason for Dem voters to be twice as many as Rep voters.
In Iowa caucus of 2000 about 86,000 voted rep while only 61,000 voted Rep.
For whom did the 236,000 Dem voters vote in Iowa 2008?
90,000 voted BO
71,000 voted Edwards
68,000 voted HC
4,000 voted Bill Richardson.
If the 86,000 democrats who voted in 2000 are among the 140,000 who voted for Edwards and HC, who are the 90,000 voters of BO?
Look at the difference between Dem and Rep voters; Dem voters are twice Rep voters; But in Iowa presidential election of 2004 Bush won with 752,000 votes to Kerry 742,000. Democrats in Iowa are not twice republicans; they are less than Republicans. So you see the cross over phenomenon in full bloom. 90,000 Reps voting BO; such is the engine of that famous momentum; 90,000 alien votes. And for this engine to move the vehicle, the much bigger engines of Florida and Michigan pulling in the other direction have to be disabled.
BO margin over HC in Iowa is just 20,000 votes. Media calls that momentum.
HC margin over total of all others in Michigan is 90,000 votes. HC margin over BO in Florida is 300,000 votes. Media calls that
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
