Channeling TIA: Here's why the GOP can steal the election

[Melissa G]

OMMM...I've been doing yoga all weekend and in the midst of all this meditating I received a message from the dearly beloved TIA. I present it as it came to me... I can't respond much about it as I have not had time to really look at it myself and I have some homework pending. I am merely acting as a good medium and channeling the message.

PS. I'm actually not kidding about the yoga..I'm putting in 11 hour days in a training seminar so if the other Good Friends of TIA can keep this thread K&R'd I would deeply appreciate it.
Thanks!
Melissa


Here is how the GOP can "win" the House

These are the current media projections, based on the latest polls:
Senate: 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, 1 tie
House: 226 Democrats, 205 Republicans, 4 Ties

Looks good, right? Well, yes, but...
The projections fail to account for:
1) The HISTORICAL RECORD of uncounted spoiled/lost votes (mostly Democratic)
2) GOP voting machines PROVEN TO BE EASILY HACKABLE BY EXPERTS:
Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Hursti, etc.

There are currently 31 GOP House seats in play. If the election were held today,
the probability that the GOP would win at least 1 of the 9 in which the
Democratic lead EXCEEDS the 3% polling MoE is 20%; the probability they would
win at least 2 is just 2%. Let's assume that the GOP won't win or steal ANY of
these seats; it would be too obvious if they tried. Therefore, the best
projection estimate is: Dems will win all 9 seats in which they are leading
beyond the margin of error.

But the Dems need to win 15 GOP seats to gain control of the House, assuming
they keep ALL of their current seats. What's to stop the GOP from stealing 5 of
the 10 seats in which the Democratic lead is within the MoE (7 seats) or in
which they are tied (3 seats)? That's all the GOP would need to win a one-seat
House majority.

The polls don't factor in the spoiled and lost votes (mostly democratic) which
occur in EVERY election. This suggests that the net Democratic lead may be 1%
LOWER than the polls suggest. On the other hand, the undecided vote (currently
5%) usually splits in favor of the challenger - in this case, the Democrat. So
we may have a wash here.

I hope I'm wrong and that fraud will not be a factor in this election. I want to
see the Dems win big. But we all know what happened in the last three elections,
don't we? The motivation to steal it is just as powerful, if not more so, then
it was in 2000,2002,2004. BushCo will do ANYTHING NECESSARY TO STAY IN POWER.

The data source for the "House Forecast Update" is www.mydd.com.

FRAUD is not mentioned once in the OP or the 50+ comments. It's as if there is
ZERO probability of vote-switching or spoiled, uncounted Democratic votes.




DemWin
DEM REP Prob >MoE?

Dems win ALL races where their lead exceeds the MoE:

1 NY-26: Davis (D) Reynolds (R) 56 40 100% y
2 OH-15: Kilroy (D) Pryce (R) 53 41 100% y
3 NY-24: Arcuri (D) Mieir (R) 53 42 100% y
4 OH-18: Space (D) Padgett (R 51 42 100% y
5 PA-07: Sestak (D) Weldon (R) 52 44 100% y
6 NM-01: Madrid (R) Wilson (R) 52 44 100% y
7 NC-11: Shuler (D) Taylor (R) 51 43 100% y
8 NC-08: Kissel (D) Hayes (R) 51 44 100% y
9 PA-06: Murphy (D) Gerlach (R) 52 46 100% y
_______

GOP steals 5+ races where the Dem lead is within the MoE:

10 MN-06: Wetterling (D) Bachmann (R) 50 45 100%
11 IN-02: Donnelly (D) Chocola (R) 50 46 100%
12 AZ-01: Simon (D) Renzi (R) 50 46 100%
13 OH-02: Wulsin (D) Schmidt (R) 48 45 98%
14 FL-13: Jennings (D) Buchannan (R) 47 44 98%
15 WI-08: Kagen (D) Gard (R) 48 46 90%
16 IA-02: Loebsack (D) Leach (R) 48 47 74%
17 KY-03: Yarmuth (D) Northup (R) 48 48 50%
18 IL-06: Duckworth (D) Roskam (R) 47 47 50%
19 CO-07: Perlmutter (D) O'Donell (R) 47 47 50%

_______

GOP wins ALL races in which they are leading:

20 MN-01: Gutknecht (R) Walz (D) 47 48 26%
21 VA-02: Drake (R) Kellam (D) 46 48 10%
22 NJ-07: Ferguson (R) Stender (D) 46 48 10%
23 NY-03: King (R) Mejas (D) 46 48 10%
24 WA-08: Reichert (R) Burner (D) 45 48 2%
25 KY-04: Davis (R) Lucas (D) 46 49 2%
26 VA-10: Wolf (R) Feder (D) 42 47 0%
27 ID-01: Sali (R) Grant (D) 43 49 0%
28 CT-05: Johnson (R) Murphy (D) 46 52 0%
29 CA-04: Doolittle (R) Brown (D) 44 52 0%
30 IL-14: Hastert (R) Leasch (D) 42 52 0%
31 IL-19: Shimkus (R) Stover (D) 36 53 0%

[Erika]

1. Why would you want to kick a thread on GOP winning?

Just asking.

[Melissa G]

2. Good question. I edited the Op for clarity..being a medium with

a lot of homework can make you fuzzy. Thanks for the help!

[Kurovski]

3. "Win" is in quotes.

I think he's saying that it will be pretty obvious if the Dems don't win. The chances are too slim for Republiconsters.

But what's to stop them from stealing? They've messed with the past three elections. Will folks sit up and notice this time?

I think he's saying it will be the most obvious election theft yet.

But I'm not sure...I'm coming down off a three day migraine and I generally don't think too straight to begin with. :-)

[Kurovski]

4. I like yoga in the morning.

I mix strawberries into it. :hi:

Thanks for offering up your psychic abilities, Melissa G.

[Melissa G]

6. LOL! Strawberries are good! I'll chuckle over that if i find myself

holding any grueling postures for 62 minutes tomorrow..:hug: Hope your head feels better...

[bananas]

10. Isn't "gruel" another word for porridge?

or something like that.
oh money pad my home...

[Kurovski]

12. Bananas are good with yoga too.

[BeFree]

5. Thanks Melissa and TIA

These are the races to watch. We shall see just how far the programmers' bosses tell them to go.

There are three weeks to go.... what do you want to bet there will be a few more races getting tighter?

Keep us posted, TIA, via Melissa. You're always welcome here. Well, most of us welcome you; I'd say by about 999 to 1.

[kster]

7. Makes good sense to me, I'm not a big

math guy, but I play one on the DU. This may very well be, one of their (Neocons) plan.

Thanks TIA and Melissa G for Channeling...........


Kick-n-Recommended

[EFerrari]

8. K & R

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. My only question is why you discount the races that put the dems

above the MOE -- several of the surprise upsets in the past 3 elections were surprises precisely because the polls put the dems safely above the margin of error.

We've seen again and again that the repubs will cheat small when they can, but cheat big when they need to.

[Awsi Dooger]

11. There are more than 31 GOP seats in play

I see several missing at first glance, namely NV-2 and NV-3.

But I'd also caution those polls are somewhat questionable. A new firm called Constituent Dynamics is responsible for the bulk of them. Apparently they robo call with short surveys and high numbers in the sample, about 1000. Their poll numbers are generally more favorable to Democrats than other House polls are indicating. For example, the PA-6 and PA-7 numbers show a large Democratic lead in the Constituent Dynamics polling, but other numbers have the races closer, if not the Republican leading.

There may also be some impact from the timing of the polls, post Foley. I don't claim to be an authority on House races but I think the polling in about two weeks will be more reliable.

http://www.pollster.com/house.php

[BeFree]

18. Yep, there's at least another 30

And by gawd, we should win them all.

60 seats turn to the democratic party or there is something seriously wrong in this country.

[Fovea]

13. Were this to occur as you lay it out

then I would predict insurrection and civil war would occur before the new congress finishes its session.


I have mentioned this before, I believe, but do you know what took Russia out of WW1? It was a civil war at home. If I had were the Late OBL, my strategy to get the west out of the sacred sites of Islam would be to mired in a war so unpopular that no one would want to go, and such a quagmire that a draft became required.

[tomreedtoon]

15. "Insurrection and civil war" if the cheats are known? Naaah...

That would require Democrats to get mad when they are cheated. That didn't happen in 2004. It won't happen in 2006.

Let me put it simply. In any of the big national forums where Democrats can be heard - which now consists only of the Sunday talk shows - have you heard any Democratic party officials or Presidential hopefuls talk about the Diebold cheats and the possibility that the election may be stolen? Or to ask all voters to demand paper ballots?

Voter fraud has been made a "major issue" to the Democratic faithful. But it hasn't been brought forth publicly, in a national forum, as an issue ALL Americans should be concerned about.

And yes, there's the potential that making such a statement might cause voters to drop out, but what good does it matter to vote if the votes are stolen/lost/gerrymandered out anyway?

Such a statement would be a genuine declaration of war against the Republicans. They call Democrats traitors? How would they react if we called them cheats, liars and hypocrites?

But again, that would require Democratic leaders who had the capability of becoming righteously angry. Ain't gonna happen.

[autorank]

14. This is the base line model for election night tracking. I hope you're

wrong too, but why won't the other Democrats factor in FRAUD and why is it still a "dirty little secret" to the insiders when they're making movies about it (Levinson's new film) and showing Votergate on HBO.

We ignore this FIRST OF THE CAMPAIGN SEASON models for catching, anticipating election fraud in 2006.

Great stuff.

Graph from TIA Post

[OneBlueSky]

16. I read recently that the Dems may pick up five seats in NY alone . . .

though I can't put my hands on the article right now . . . and since we still vote on lever machines here, Diebold becomes a non-factor . . .

still, I understand that most states have adopted some form of electronic voting . . . BushCo's approach will likely be to concentrate their fraud in one or two states (e.g. Ohio in 2004, Georgia in 2002, Florida in 2000) . . .

they'll try to confine the area of controversy and assume they can handle the fallout . . . and based on the past three elections, they'll probably succeed . . .

[Febble]

17. It's a slightly odd

way of looking at the polling data, because the MoE isn't a distinct category. Where the margin boundaries are drawn simply depends on your confidence limits, and as TIA has computed 95% confidence limits (apparently), that value determines his categories.

But that throws away a lot of information. The MoE only gives you the probability for seats that lie on the margin itself. The larger, relative to that MoE, the polled margin is, the better the chances for the leading candidate. And for those within the MoE, the closer the margin, the nearer to 50% is the chance of winning.

But even that is not taking all the information into account. Imagine an election in which every poll for every seat showed the Dems ahead by 2%. And imagine that that 2% was within the 95% confidence interval for every poll. In that case it would be wrong to assume that the Dems were not ahead, just because they were always within their MoE. In fact, the probability of the Dems winning a majority of seats would be much greater than the probability of the Reps winning more seats. You just wouldn't be able to pick which ones they were most likely to win.

OnTheOtherHand got me hooked on this interesting site:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/brutalb.php

and of course I recommend this one too:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/

which has polls on every race.

Last time I checked on the narrow races, the polls tended to have the Dems ahead, even when they were within the MoE. In other words, for once, I'm more optimistic than TIA!

Although I take his point about spoilage.

[BeFree]

19. Yeah

Whatever.

Remember the pollster who was found cooking the numbers? There was a thread here about two months ago. And we've all seen how poll numbers have been cooked and hashed, so any certainty based on polls are ill-founded, right?

What we do know is that running through the American psyche is an idea that the current course politics is on, is a course that must be changed. The only way to make that change is through the vote. Seeing that the crooks in charge are the same who count the votes, we can with certainty see how they got power to begin with and what they will do to hold on to it, don't you think?

Can you say "Cooking with bushco"?

[Febble]

20. So you agree?

That would be nice!

on edit

To clarify: I meant by saying this:

"What we do know is that running through the American psyche is an idea that the current course politics is on, is a course that must be changed" you seem to be sharing my optimistic view of what the polls are telling us.

[BeFree]

21. Agree

Hell, if we don't win an extra 60 seats, at least, there is something seriously wrong in my country.

[bleever]

22. Thanks for the link. nt

[Blue Shark]

25. But Febble...

...you have never bought into the theory that vote flipping has occured electronically and is certain to occur yet again.

...Any analysis of elections in the past four cycles that does not take into account the exact type of vote flipping that the Princeton team demonstarted beyond a doubt is flawed. All the margins of victory, the victorius party, the victorious candidate...all of that is skewed by fraud. It is just the magnitude of the fraud that is unknown and unknowable.

...I don't advocate that the democrats cheat to win, but the Republicans do in many ways. It is that cheating that I believe TIA is validly concerned about and not just the method.

...The expansion of Faith-Based BlackBox voting this November will be massive. Given the Primary results there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR CONFIDENCE in the reported vote tabulation by any of these accursed machines.

...If the cheating is extensive, once again, is America prepared to march in the streets on November 8th?

...that...I do not know.

[Febble]

26. You called....

There is strong evidence that electronic vote-flips occurred in 2004 - actual voter reports - and I have no hope that it won't happen next time as well.

I also agree that the magnitude of the fraud is unknown, and, indeed, unknowable for sure. However, I would argue that the exit poll evidence, plus evidence from actual vote returns, puts the probability of the magnitude being in the millions as low.

And yes, I share TIA's concern both about deliberate cheating and about loss of votes for Democratic candidates through greater spoilage of greater Democratic votes. I also worry about all kinds of voter suppression, whether malicious or systemic.

And I agree you have no basis for confidence in the results from the machines. It is absurd that one should have to do probability analyses on a First World election in order to find out whether the official winner really won.

And whether or not the cheating is decisive, if there is evidence that it occurred at all, whether electronic or by old-fashioned Jim Crow tactics, then yes, I hope America is prepared to take to the streets on November 8th.

OK?

[cosmicdot]

23. if establishing a House majority comes down to one seat ...

what is the possibility of some "Democrat" who has consistently supported the Bu$h agenda to switch parties?

... just conjecturing out loud ...

The balance of power in recent times has been delicate and has often come down to one or two people, i.e. 5-4 SCOTUS votes to install Bu$h in 2000; a couple of votes passed Medicare Rx in the House in 2003, at 6 a.m. after all-night arm-twisting; as VP, Al Gore cast the Senate vote to pass the Clinton Administration's budget (IIRC).

I would say there are so many skeletons in Capitol Hill closets (can't deny the corruption) that blackmail has been quite the bully tactic in persuading votes on bills, i.e., Foley on CAFTA. Could it persuade a traitor to cross over to the other side of the aisle?

[kster]

24. Kick...nt

[Imagevision]

27. Bush will steal the election and claim the polls got it wrong (again)

sad day in the US. as Bush wants the world to have democracy as we have?

[Peace Patriot]

28. I think they're going to put together an effective pro-Bush majority that

looks like a Democratic majority, but really isn't, in the House, and risk the change of committee chairs--let the Dems have some fun investigatin'--but with sufficient votes to shut down any truly serious investigation or impeachment, and also to preserve fascist/corporate gains. So we might be able to predict what's going to happen--partially, anyway--by looking at the Democrats who voted for torture and suspension of habeas corpus. The Bush Junta is already working with what I call Bushite Democrats to pass utterly outrageous "end of the Republic" legislation. But they also need to protect their electronic voting stealing capability for future uses. So, with this scenario--an apparent Dem win the House, but still with an effective Bushite majority--they can say, to those of us who object to Bushite corporations "counting" all the votes with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, "What's your beef--the Democrats won, didn't they?"

And no Bushite Democrats needs to change party.

The primary motive in this scenario would be saving Diebold/ES&S for '08 and other future (s)elections. If they make it too obvious this November, then an outraged citizenry may just deprive them of their easy election theft capability--voting machines and central tabulators run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, directly controlled by Bush operatives--in enough places to make a difference in '08, and start an overwhelming trend to get rid of the them all, which would destroy the Bushite political entrenchment in Florida and California (where it's growing quite scarily) and other places.

Think what they've put in place to handle, say, a Conyers or Waxman investigation. The "unitary" executive, who can ignore 200+ laws passed by Congress (and a Bushite Congress at that), who can simply ignore the courts on "enemy combatant" detention, and stonewall on every demand for information, with congress/courts having little enforcement will or power. Say Conyers or Waxman issues subpoenas. Bush/Cheney just ignore them, and it is at this point that the effective Bushite majority (Bushite "pod people" plus Bushite Democrats) comes into play--enforcement.

I think there is more at stake here than just Bush, or just Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (the real "axis of evil"). Corporate Rule is at stake (the "vortex of evil"). And, as Autorank has brilliantly pointed out, this Bushite child molestation scandal (Foley) is a damned odd development of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. They hit their darling Bush "pod people" with a vile sex scandal four weeks before the (s)election? After 6 years of completely ignoring everything else this Junta has done?

It doesn't add up unless you posit a split in the Bushite/Corporate Ruler ranks. Turn it around, and look through the other end of the telescope. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and their "pod people" in Congress (17% approval rating!) have ENDANGERED Corporate Rule, and in particular have endangered the Corporate Rulers' election theft capability for future uses. The installation of Diebold/ES&S election theft capability all over the country was one of the greater gifts that Tom Delay, Bob Ney and Christopher Dodd gave to the Dark Lords. Dodd is Bilderberg. What we're looking at here may not be so much a Nazi plot as a CORPORATE plot. In that Corporate plot, the idea was to hit us hard with "in your face" fascism--and also weaken all of the country's defenses against global corporate predators--so that we would be GRATEFUL for a return of mere Corporate Rule. (Remember the huge Seattle anti-globalization protest--50,000 shutting down the WTO--that rebellion was against Clinton and the Corporatists, not Bush!)

The Corporatists DON'T WANT any significant political discussion of Iraq or the economy or lobbying or corporate privatization of our elections, or anything substantive. What could they substitute that wouldn't endanger any of their agenda, but yet serve to curtail the Bushites? A sex scandal! Something they do well, in any case.

The Bush Junta and the Corporate Rulers were as one--up to this point. Corporate oil war. Massive looting and weakening of the Fed government. Massive de-regulation. Massive tax cuts for the rich. Massive gas gouging. Massive pharmaceutical invasion of Medicare. Massive credit card usury. Etc. Etc. But there has been a parting of the ways (in my theorizing of this scenario), possibly having to do with China and Iran. (China is the NEXT global corporate looting landscape; China gets much of its oil from Iran and is not about to let those oil fields fall into Bush Cartel hands. Also, China is holding the paper on our debt, and could send the dollar into an unrecoverable nosedive tomorrow, if they chose to.) Another issue may be South America. The Bushites' have basically "lost" South America, as they say. South America is in full rebellion against U.S.-based global corporate predators--with leftist (majorityist) governments elected (really elected) in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Venezuela and Bolivia--virtually the entire continent--and soon in Ecuador (and, next election cycle, in Peru), and the issue is very much U.S. corporate domination. So, in many ways, the Bushites have become "bad for business."

The Foley sex scandal has seemed like manna from heaven, to us Democrats--exposing some of the rot at the heart of one-party rule. But it may just be (in fact very likely is) just news manipulation. Something to hang the Bushites' apparent loss of Congress on. And I stress apparent. The Corporate Rulers may have diverged from the Bushites--and may be looking to the future--but they cannot afford a major cleansing. Just think for a moment about the NYT, and what a real investigation of the Iraq war might reveal--they had a top war propagandist reporter, pushing the WMD lies on their front page every day for months in the leadup to the war, and then helping the Bushits to out and disable a CIA counter-proliferation network when no WMDs were found. And that's just one corporation. What of the deep complicity of the others?

Sex scandals. Bribery scandals. They get a lot of play. The Iraq war is getting some play, but only to the extent that it has been bungled. (If "we" were "winning," criticism of it wouldn't be getting any air time.) The fact that it was bungled can therefore be used to further curtail the Bushites (vis a vis Iran), while not permitting any serious discussion of America's military machine or any other substantive issue. There might be some good guys--say, within the military/intelligence communities--involved in curtailing the Bush Junta's power, in alliance with the Corporates, but I'm just speaking now of the Corporates, one of whose motives is surely to preserve their new direct election theft capability.

I don't think the pattern in '06 will be easy to see. One of the drivers will be preserving their election theft capability. So they may not do big vote flips (such as those in Ohio recently on the four election reform initiatives--predicted to win by 60/40 votes, flipped over on election day into 60/40 LOSSES!). They will let a few popular Democrats get elected, and concentrate on, a) preserving Bushites in close races (where a small tweak of the vote will do the trick), and b) on (s)electing safe Bushite Democrats to make this look, overall, like a Democratic win.

The red flag on election theft will be the failure of the Democrats to get a slam-dunk leftist majority in the House, which is what SHOULD be happening, given the overwhelming anti-Bushite sentiment in the country. A mere Democratic majority--padded with people who vote for torture and suspension of habeas corpus--will be sold as the real thing, and will be used to dampen the fires of the election reformists. Us.

Someone upthread suggested that the theft may possibly concentrated in one or two states. I nominate California as one of them. The Bushites and Diebold shills have been very busy in California, getting rid of an honest Secretary of State (Kevin Shelley, who sued Diebold and decertified their touchscreens, prior to the 2004 election), and installing a Diebold shill (Bruce McPherson) as Sec of State, appointed by Schwarzenegger. McPherson then ILLEGALLY re-certified Diebold touchscreens. Among other things. They have for sure been out to Diebold this state. We saw the prelim in CA-50.

The reality is that private corporations with close ties to the Bush regime, the Republican Party and far rightwing causes, now have direct control over election results, using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls, in their electronic voting machines and central tabulators, all over the country. They could simply trump all of these vote counts, with Bush declaring martial law and arresting and detaining anyone who objects, official or otherwise. The capability is there. The powers are there. So maybe we'd better hope that the Bushite/Corporate split is true. In either scenario, we, the people, don't have much power left. The one power we do have left--the power to BOYCOTT these election theft machines, by voting with an ABSENTEE BALLOT, and thus to force local election officials to reform this system or resign, may be short-lived.

This indigenous citizen protest--Absentee Ballot voting--is very big. There are reports from all over of dramatic increases in AB voting. Let's hope that it succeeds, and gives some clout to election reformers to demand TRANSPARENT vote counting for '08. We don't have it for '06, and consequently these elections on Nov. 7 are wide open to any scenario that our Corporate Rulers want to play out. A big rebellious anti-Bushite vote in one place can be countered by massive and undetectable electronic vote stealing in another, to put together whatever kind of Congress they have in mind, for their own goals. That's the reality of it.

Good night and good luck to us all!

[McCamy Taylor]

29. All is not lost. We can still win.