Ron Paul Won Early Primaries, Mathematicians Find. Election Judge Threatened.

[parocks]

Those trying to discount the theory are missing several things and obviously didn't read the full billion page thread.

1. If Romney does so much better in the larger areas, as stated, then why didn't polling data from rural, urban, and suburban areas from three different states show this? Instead it showed that all of the candidates in the race at the time enjoyed almost the same percentage of support from all areas. Another possibility is that larger areas are more likely to be counted by electronic voting machines.

2. You shouldn't see the "mirror image" between Romney and Paul when there are multiple other people running. In the fullbillion page thread, not one detractor could come up with a plausible explanation for that.

Site your sources. We aren't simply talking about "rural" "suburban" and "urban" either. I predicted exactly where Romney would be strongest before the election. That's because I knew enough about the state, where the rich people lived, to make that determination. I said something like "people are going to cry fraud when they see how well Mitt Romney does in Southern Fairfield County. And he did get between 80-85 percent on the "gold coast", compared to 67% statewide.

Now, if you give me 3 sets of results, the connecticut results, with the graph including all votes, a graph of those 5 towns, and a graph with everything but those 5 towns, you'll see the "everything but those 5 towns" being a lot flatter.

And remember, I predicted this beforehand, I'm not choosing these results because the graph looked "wrong". The richest people, the people who work for Fortune 500 companies, all them, they like Romney and they don't like Ron Paul. And that little fact, or theory, really explains the results as well as "vote flipping".

I've heard flippers talk about how everywhere in the US it's pretty much the same. People in rich suburbs and people in urban areas think the same, so Candidate X and Candidate Y should have the same percentage in both areas. Which just shows complete stupidity on their part. People who haven't the slightest clue about politics are claiming vote flipping. I'm not saying that there isn't vote fraud like this. It's just that claiming that the lines should be flat in a Romney v Paul race, or one where they're major factors in the race is stupid.

Perhaps they've advanced, and gotten somewhere?

 

[libertyfanatic]

It shouldn't have to take a mathematician to figure out that voter fraud occurred

 

[parocks]

ah, you're trying to use logic, whatz a matta ya?

because Romney is a quintessential Country Club Republican.

If I had a race to look at, to try to find that a similar "country club republican is popular in large precincts" effect - I would look at Bush vs Buchanan 1992 Bush would be Romney and Buchanan would be Paul. Reagan / Bush might be similar. Reagan is Paul and Bush is Romney.

 

[parocks]

Assuming Parocks is right in that rich, country club suburbanites are skewing the data and are the cause of the flipping phenomenon... why haven't we seen them skew other races both past and present? And how do you explain elections with flat line results? How could such a sizable, uniform voting block not cause the phenomenon in every race?

"skewing the data"? "cause of the flipping phenominon"?

Those are the results? More votes for Romney in the larger precincts. Those rich folks in the rich suburbs voted a lot. There is no "flipping phenominon".

People seem to think that it's odd that a candidate with Romney's background and a candidate with Ron Paul's background appeal to distinctly different types of people. It's obvious that people who are getting rich off the system are not wanting to change the system. The people who have gotten the richest, who have benefitted from the system the most, live in the richest communities. It is no shock that people in those areas like Mitt Romney the most.

And the flippers, who hopefully would be doing something useful, have not been able to rebut the "rich people like Romney" explanation. They should be factoring that piece of obviousness into their theories. Correcting for that.

Even the graphs they use are lacking in utility. Let's not do the graphs cumulatively. Just plot the individual precincts. It'll look a lot less "neat" if you do it that way. Or, perhaps, it will be revealing? But, over the last 3 (or more) whole months, you simply print out a chart that shows that people in big precincts prefer Romney. And because you don't realize that simple fact, you think that it's due to a "phenominon" of vote flipping.

 

[parocks]

So, you don't get intellent until you join RPF?

"intellent"?

No, it's that people who have only been here a short time and only talk about "vote flipping" are less likely to be Ron Paul supporters than people who have been here 5 years and don't just stick to vote flipping threads.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Honestly, Rich Republicans I would think would prefer Romney to Ron Paul. It's natural for them to want Romney. They're making a lot of money, right now, and they don't want someone to come in and change things up. Because if that happens, they might not get as much money as they're getting right now. The rich people are very very happy with Romney's proposals, which are, basically, more of the same. And rich people don't want change. Rich people don't like the tea party. Rich Republicans, Country Club Republicans, Establishment, Rockefeller Republicans, all of those who are beneficiaries of the fed gov / big business partnership, with the agencies hiring regulators from the corporations they're supposed to regulate, all of those people prefer Romney to Ron Paul. Middle management and up at any Fortune 500 company is going to prefer Romney to Ron Paul by a wide margin. That just makes sense. We're the ones who want to end all that bs. They're the ones who want to keep it going.

You are way over-generalizing.

 

[Tiso0770]

"skewing the data"? "cause of the flipping phenominon"?

Those are the results? More votes for Romney in the larger precincts. Those rich folks in the rich suburbs voted a lot. There is no "flipping phenominon".

People seem to think that it's odd that a candidate with Romney's background and a candidate with Ron Paul's background appeal to distinctly different types of people. It's obvious that people who are getting rich off the system are not wanting to change the system. The people who have gotten the richest, who have benefitted from the system the most, live in the richest communities. It is no shock that people in those areas like Mitt Romney the most.

And the flippers, who hopefully would be doing something useful, have not been able to rebut the "rich people like Romney" explanation. They should be factoring that piece of obviousness into their theories. Correcting for that.

Even the graphs they use are lacking in utility. Let's not do the graphs cumulatively. Just plot the individual precincts. It'll look a lot less "neat" if you do it that way. Or, perhaps, it will be revealing? But, over the last 3 (or more) whole months, you simply print out a chart that shows that people in big precincts prefer Romney. And because you don't realize that simple fact, you think that it's due to a "phenominon" of vote flipping.

Yes, but wouldn't it still be a flat line instead of a mirror effect?.

 

[parocks]

Can anyone figure out what the problem is here with Iowa and Des Moines?

 

[HopeForHumanity]

What I find most interesting, and truly the strongest reason to assume targeted fraud, is the lines for gingrich, santorum, ect

 

[parocks]

Yes, but wouldn't it still be a flat line instead of a mirror effect?.

Should what be a flat line?

The horizontal axis in these graphs is usually the total votes from smallest to largest. so, the smallest precincts are on the left, and the largest are on the right.
What you're seeing is that as the precincts get larger, Romney does better, gets a higher percentage of the vote in the largest precincts. This doesn't surprise me. The small towns, outside of urban (and suburban) areas were not strong for Romney. People in small towns are typically more conservative, and are not impressed by venture capitalists. People who work in the corporate offices of Fortune 500 companies probably live in one of the larger precincts. Maybe even the largest precinct. After all, there are a lot of people who work in the corporate offices. And they might be spread out all over the place, but typically, they want to live in the good developments. The rich suburb. And those people are Romney supporters. This dynamic seems just to be a mystery to so many.

Think of the movie animal house or caddyshack. The one frat in Animal House, (Neidermeyers I think) that was Romney supporters. Ted Knight in Caddyshack, that's a Romney supporter.

About the math. if Romney gets 70% in the largest precincts and 30% in the smallest precincts, you will see his number slope up from 30% to 70%. Now, when Romney's percentage goes from 30 to 70%, the totals of everybody else will fall from 70 to 30 %. Because at each point, the totals for everybody equal 100%.

 

[parocks]

What I find most interesting, and truly the strongest reason to assume targeted fraud, is the lines for gingrich, santorum, ect

How do you think they did the fraud in Iowa?

 

[HopeForHumanity]

Should what be a flat line?

The horizontal axis in these graphs is usually the total votes from smallest to largest. so, the smallest precincts are on the left, and the largest are on the right.
What you're seeing is that as the precincts get larger, Romney does better, gets a higher percentage of the vote in the largest precincts. This doesn't surprise me. The small towns, outside of urban (and suburban) areas were not strong for Romney. People in small towns are typically more conservative, and are not impressed by venture capitalists. People who work in the corporate offices of Fortune 500 companies probably live in one of the larger precincts. Maybe even the largest precinct. After all, there are a lot of people who work in the corporate offices. And they might be spread out all over the place, but typically, they want to live in the good developments. The rich suburb. And those people are Romney supporters. This dynamic seems just to be a mystery to so many.

Think of the movie animal house or caddyshack. The one frat in Animal House, (Neidermeyers I think) that was Romney supporters. Ted Knight in Caddyshack, that's a Romney supporter.

About the math. if Romney gets 70% in the largest precincts and 30% in the smallest precincts, you will see his number slope up from 30% to 70%. Now, when Romney's percentage goes from 30 to 70%, the totals of everybody else will fall from 70 to 30 %. Because at each point, the totals for everybody equal 100%.

If romney did overwhelmingly better in large precints it would be a neutral variable. This means it would affect not only ron paul, but santorum and gingrich as well. Those lines remain flat... Maybe your mind gears will start spinning.

 

[DanK22]

How can the demographics-argument account for the flat-liners? Either they didn't vote in those elections, they've only started voting recently, their votes were cast in equal %s among all candidates (Except for when Romney is in the race), they only recently migrated to the more populous areas (The great Mitt Migration), or that argument can't explain the 'flipping'.

 

[parocks]

You are way over-generalizing.

yeah, I'm trying to make it as simple and easy to understand as possible, because they don't seem to get it at all. Different types of people like different types of things. That's the basic concept I'm trying to explain.

 

[parocks]

How can the demographics-argument account for the flat-liners? Either they didn't vote in those elections, they've only started voting recently, their votes were cast in equal %s among all candidates (Except for when Romney is in the race), or that argument can't explain the 'flipping'.

Those weren't flat. Buchanan went down. Just like Paul.

But, yes, the shape of the curves were much more pronounced with Romney and Paul.

I would've expected a more steep downward for Buchanan expecially against Bush. The only takeaway I can really get (besides the gradual downward of Buchanan) was Lamar Alexander wasn't popular in the smallest precincts.

The reason why you'd see these kind of results is that romney was the perfect candidate for a certain type of person. In previous years, the votes of those country club republicans were split a bunch of different ways. Here, the country club republican was solidly for Romney. In previous years, that wasn't the case. That's what I'd say about that. But, yes, what this is showing is a more severe like for Romney in the largest precincts than other candidates had in prior elections.

 

[ChristopherShelley]

I would LOVE to show you the proof...



First, we establish a 99.76% probability that it IS possible for the establishment to cheat.




Second, we establish that you get to figure out the rest...

Yawn.

 

[HopeForHumanity]

Those weren't flat. Buchanan went down. Just like Paul.

The new hampshire one does look suspicious 92, but the one in 96 looks just fine.

 

[parocks]

If romney did overwhelmingly better in large precints it would be a neutral variable. This means it would affect not only ron paul, but santorum and gingrich as well. Those lines remain flat... Maybe your mind gears will start spinning.

People in large precincts don't like Ron Paul.

 

[parocks]

The new hampshire one does look suspicious 92, but the one in 96 looks just fine.

it's not suspicious. What looks suspicious to me is if there ISN'T that variation. People who live in tiny towns and people who live in big suburbs SHOULD have different preferences, SHOULD be voting for different candidates.

 

[HopeForHumanity]

it's not suspicious. What looks suspicious to me is if there ISN'T that variation. People who live in tiny towns and people who live in big suburbs SHOULD have different preferences, SHOULD be voting for different candidates.

You can see the variation in the beginning. Its really weird that your missing these details. Otherwise your saying that voter fraud is happening more often then not, which I certainly do not believe.