Nevada - WTF?

[newbitech]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?358592-For-people-that-want-to-deal-in-facts-regarding-the-missing-Nevada-votes.

I did the math.

Vote fraud is a big issue, but looking at the numbers, I don't it is happening in Nevada to disrupt Ron Paul from gathering delegates. Especially on that kind of scale. Not saying it's impossible, but the numbers are quite sobering.

 

[ForLibertyFight]

Ron didnt get 1st in NV, that is going overboard a bit. Romney had huge leads everywhere as the votes were coming in. This all started about 1/2 way through the counting, as Newt and Ron were going back and forth, and suddenly out of nowhere it just stops. Why on earth would that happen? There is just no excuse for this kind of thing to happen and it happened in IA as well with numerous anomalies all over the place. It can't be anymore obvious that they don't want Ron coming in 2nd, and once they realized that, they simply shut down the counting so they could take 'evasive action' or do whatever they had to in order to 'fix' it. The whole thing stinks worse than stink itself.

This is true. All the polls had Romney around 50%

 

[MadOdorMachine]

See this thread, post #62.

I have no words. Thanks.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

What's the point of even trying to get Ron elected if people just think that every election is stolen anyway? I would think that people that paranoid wouldn't want to be involved in politics.

Because if honest people get involved in a dishonest venture it brings to light those who work in the dark. And it wakes those oblivious to wrong doing.

 

[Brett85]

Because if honest people get involved in a dishonest venture it brings to light those who work in the dark. And it wakes those oblivious to wrong doing.

I think people should actually have evidence of vote fraud before they make wild accusations. The situation in Nevada simply proves that the Nevada GOP is completely incompetent, nothing more. There's no evidence that there's any conspiracy to take away support from any one candidate.

 

[wgadget]

What's the point of even trying to get Ron elected if people just think that every election is stolen anyway? I would think that people that paranoid wouldn't want to be involved in politics.

What's the point of even having elections if the people running them don't know how to pass out ballots and count?

 

[Maestro232]

It's perception that's at stake. That's why they are trying to deny him first or second, whichever he actually got. The reason 1st isn't out of the question in my mind is I don't think they would be working so hard to desenfranchise this if he was only in second. Also, turnout was very low and RP had lot's of ID's, so I think the numbers might have been possible. Just look at the crowd at Adelson's thing.

 

[Brett85]

What's the point of even having elections if the people running them don't know how to pass out ballots and count?

That's something the Nevada GOP needs to get straightened out. It has nothing to do with Ron being in the race though. Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory.

 

[wgadget]

I think people should actually have evidence of vote fraud before they make wild accusations. The situation in Nevada simply proves that the Nevada GOP is completely incompetent, nothing more. There's no evidence that there's any conspiracy to take away support from any one candidate.

Roight. Must be mere coincidence when it only happens in states where Ron's organization is strong. See Iowa, Nevada.

 

[peluski17]

So, I'm looking at the 2008 results and looking at the 2012 results...what was the cause for a smaller voter turnout? In 2008 there was both a GOP and Democratic caucus...this year only a GOP Caucus. In 2008, there were more GOP Caucus-goers than this year, yet Ron Paul and his campaign have stated they had more committed voters that would turn out than all of Romney's numbers in 2008. Was it the fact that there were more candidates or the fact that there was no incumbent in 2008? Heck RP received less votes this election than 2008 with less candidates... Something doesn't seem right.

2008 Results
Mitt Romney

22,646​

Ron Paul

6,084​

John McCain

5,650​

Mike Huckabee

3,616​

Fred D. Thompson

3,519​

Rudolph W. Giuliani

1,910​

Duncan Hunter

890​

2012 Results (So far)
Mitt Romney

11,822​

Newt Gingrich

5,623​

Ron Paul

4,619​

Rick Santorum

2,749​

 

[JoshS]

I think it's funny some people claim voting fraud is a 'wild' accusation when they know full well we do it to every other country we touch. Yet it's so absurd and wild to believe it might happen in our own.

 

[Brett85]

Roight. Must be mere coincidence when it only happens in states where Ron's organization is strong. See Iowa, Nevada.

Ron still out performed the PPP poll, which actually had him behind Newt by 10%. Ron's organization made up at least 10% on Newt. But, there was no credible independent polling that had Ron ahead of Newt for 2nd. There was just one poll nobody had ever heard of that had an extremely small sample size.

 

[Brett85]

So, I'm looking at the 2008 results and looking at the 2012 results...what was the cause for a smaller voter turnout? In 2008 there was both a GOP and Democratic caucus...this year only a GOP Caucus. In 2008, there were more GOP Caucus-goers than this year, yet Ron Paul and his campaign have stated they had more committed voters that would turn out than all of Romney's numbers in 2008. Was it the fact that there were more candidates or the fact that there was no incumbent in 2008? Heck RP received less votes this election than 2008 with less candidates... Something doesn't seem right.

It's because the campaign doesn't seem to realize that someone saying they're going to come out and vote doesn't necessarily mean that they'll actually vote. They need to be knocking on doors and even driving people to the polls and to caucuses. That's the only way you get your people to turn out to vote.

 

[carterm]

NEVER FORGET "THE GATED COMMUNITY!"

 

[Maestro232]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/05/nevada-gop-dealing-trouble-box/
false flag. Distracting from Senanagins with a puny "trouble box"

 

[Student Of Paulism]

You guys who are not fully on board with deception and fraud, need to understand that public perception is everything for them. Having in Ron in second is also just as bad as having him in first. They want the media buzz to be about Mitt and Newt. Ron taking second ruins that. It also ruins their debate theatrics as well, and they won't be able to eat their popcorn and raisinettes while the Mitt and Newt Show takes place and be able to frame their questioning around it. They want the sheepish masses to be focused on those two only. Look at the debates when the camera pans out, nearly every shot is just R/M/N and Ron is cut off the picture. I mean, cmon, do i really need to explain the MSM black out and psyops to some of you? I would think most would know this by now. This is exactly why Stay Puft will not drop out and stay in it til the end, same with Rick. If either one drops out, the establishment's narrative is destroyed. Rick dropping out, gives Ron direct fire at both of them. Newt dropping out, gives Ron the anti-romney leverage and makes Rick irrelevant. Keeping Ron in 3rd or 4th, makes it about him fighting Rick, which is just where they want it to be. and obviously, the NV caucuses were going to go against that agenda. It is plain as day. You don't need to be a Zbiggy type master strategist to see what is going on here.

 

[MozoVote]

FOX news:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/05/nevada-caucuses-suffer-low-turnout-surly-confrontations/

 

[Brett85]

You guys who are not fully on board with deception and fraud, need to understand that public perception is everything for them. Having in Ron in second is also just as bad as having him in first. They want the media buzz to be about Mitt and Newt. Ron taking second ruins that. It also ruins their debate theatrics as well, and they won't be able to eat their popcorn and raisinettes while the Mitt and Newt Show takes place and be able to frame their questioning around it. They want the sheepish masses to be focused on those two only. Look at the debates when the camera pans out, nearly every shot is just R/M/N and Ron is cut off the picture. I mean, cmon, do i really need to explain the MSM black out and psyops to some of you? I would think most would know this by now. This is exactly why Stay Puft will not drop out and stay in it til the end, same with Rick. If either one drops out, the establishment's narrative is destroyed. Rick dropping out, gives Ron direct fire at both of them. Newt dropping out, gives Ron the anti-romney leverage and makes Rick irrelevant. Keeping Ron in 3rd or 4th, makes it about him fighting Rick, which is just where they want it to be. and obviously, the NV caucuses were going to go against that agenda. It is plain as day. You don't need to be a Zbiggy type master strategist to see what is going on here.

I guess the New Hampshire GOP didn't get the memo then. They had Ron in 2nd and Newt in 4th. Apparently they didn't attend the conspiracy meetings.

 

[wgadget]

If Ron were to be reported having come in second in Nevada, it would once again become a four man race and limbaugh could no longer say ALL THREE CANDIDATES.

Grr.

 

[JoshS]

I guess the New Hampshire GOP didn't get the memo then. They had Ron in 2nd and Newt in 4th. Apparently they didn't attend the conspiracy meetings.

You can only skew the vote so much. Making it too obvious rings too many bells for people.