DescentBB

six of Philadelphia's 66 wards handed the president victory shares of 99 percent or better. In 20 of the wards, the Obama vote totals exceeded 97 percent.

99%?!?!?!?!?!? WOW

there literally are no Republicans in Philly. They often don't run candidates for judgeships at all, and only token candidates for mayor or district attorney. No shock there.

Yes lovely Philly...where they havn't invented the broom or lawnmower yet.

and the NBP party makes sure they have fair elections

On Monday, the Inquirer reported that in 59 of Philadelphia's "divisions" -- these are subsets of wards, wherein fewer than 1,000 people might be registered to vote -- GOP nominee Mitt Romney failed to win even a single vote. Collectively, the votes for Obama across these divisions added up to 19,605, to Romney's zero.

ZERO not a single person voted for Romney???? NOT ONE?????

However, Barone noted that turnout rates in these areas was sometimes reported to have exceeded 90 percent, a level of enthusiasm that he said should arouse suspicion. "Philadelphia's been a place that's had some pretty irregular election procedures in the past," he said.

and 90% turnout?????


hell I cant even go to a Blazer game with 20,000 fans and have everyone of them support the home team

What do you expect for a city where a Democratic mayor bombed their own people into submission.

If that were true, even in the slightest, he'd be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity. Was he?

I would be leery of whatever that source is claiming 99%. Politico's election results seem to be a little more reasonable looking (though it doesn't get into ward-level resolution). Compare that to basically any county in Utah and you can see some pretty high percentages for Romney. After browsing several states of data, it looks about how I would expect it.

I'm sure there is going to be allegations of voter fraud for the next 4 years and, let's face it, pretty much every year going forward for as long as the republic stands. I'm sure lots of things won't "add up," partially because we don't have a homogenous voting system in place. Hopefully we will one day.

Ferno wrote:If that were true, even in the slightest, he'd be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity. Was he?

bull★■◆●, I lived thru it and seen it with my own eyes.

Ferno wrote:If that were true, even in the slightest, he'd be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity. Was he?

I'd assume that Heretic is referring to the MOVE bombing, which occurred in 1985. (Coincidentally, my parents were flying back into Philly from their honeymoon the day it happened.) No criminal charges were ever filed against any city officials, but I don't really have any idea who it was that made the call to use the bomb.

Spidey wrote:Yes lovely Philly...where they havn't invented the broom or lawnmower yet.

you clearly don't live in South Philly. My wife's relatives not only keep their place clean, but I suspect some of the residents might, um, object with a certain amount of threat level, to anyone who didn't.

CUDA wrote:

On Monday, the Inquirer reported that in 59 of Philadelphia's "divisions" -- these are subsets of wards, wherein fewer than 1,000 people might be registered to vote -- GOP nominee Mitt Romney failed to win even a single vote. Collectively, the votes for Obama across these divisions added up to 19,605, to Romney's zero.

ZERO not a single person voted for Romney???? NOT ONE?????

However, Barone noted that turnout rates in these areas was sometimes reported to have exceeded 90 percent, a level of enthusiasm that he said should arouse suspicion. "Philadelphia's been a place that's had some pretty irregular election procedures in the past," he said.

and 90% turnout?????


hell I cant even go to a Blazer game with 20,000 fans and have everyone of them support the home team

the GOP, I believe, really miscalculated on the voter ID(PA) and other clear voter surpression schemes. It seems to have pissed black folks off, as the African American turnout numbers nationwide were higher this time than in 2008.

callmeslick wrote:the GOP, I believe, really miscalculated on the voter ID(PA) and other clear voter surpression schemes. It seems to have pissed black folks off, as the African American turnout numbers nationwide were higher this time than in 2008.

Campbell acknowledged that the odds are stacked in his favor in Philadelphia, where Democrats outnumber GOP voters by nearly 7-1.

so a quick look at the math of 19605 votes cast with a 7-1 ration IF every single person voted that would still have been about 4000 votes for Romney. and your going to sit there with a straight face and tell me not 1 republican voted. NOT A SINGLE ONE???

BREAKING: St. Lucie County, Florida Had 141.1% Turnout; Obama Won County

in Cleveland's Fifth Ward, Mr. Obama won districts E, F, and G 1,337 to Mitt Romney's... 0. And in case you're wondering, Gary Johnson received more votes than Mr. Romney.

if it walks like a duck

Top Gun wrote:

Ferno wrote:If that were true, even in the slightest, he'd be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity. Was he?

I'd assume that Heretic is referring to the MOVE bombing, which occurred in 1985. (Coincidentally, my parents were flying back into Philly from their honeymoon the day it happened.) No criminal charges were ever filed against any city officials, but I don't really have any idea who it was that made the call to use the bomb.

I think it was the police chief at the time(name I don't recall), but the mayor at that time, Wilson Goode, approved it.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:the GOP, I believe, really miscalculated on the voter ID(PA) and other clear voter surpression schemes. It seems to have pissed black folks off, as the African American turnout numbers nationwide were higher this time than in 2008.

Campbell acknowledged that the odds are stacked in his favor in Philadelphia, where Democrats outnumber GOP voters by nearly 7-1.

so a quick look at the math of 19605 votes cast with a 7-1 ration IF every single person voted that would still have been about 4000 votes for Romney. and your going to sit there with a straight face and tell me not 1 republican voted. NOT A SINGLE ONE???

yup, in certain wards, or subsets of them, there are ZERO republicans.

if it walks like a duck

....then, sour grapes it seems to be, on your part. Romney lost, on the merits,in a very well monitored election. Get over it, please.

callmeslick wrote:[....then, sour grapes it seems to be, on your part. Romney lost, on the merits,in a very well monitored election. Get over it, please.

what does your science background say about those Odds slick. BE HONEST what are the mathematical chances of 20,000 people voting and not a single vote being cast for the opposition. and now your sounding like Buzz. I have legitimate questions. for the sake of the integrity of the election these results should be questioned. I'm not advocating changing the results. but shouldn't we at least know?? how can 141% of the population vote??. do you not see the question there?

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:[....then, sour grapes it seems to be, on your part. Romney lost, on the merits,in a very well monitored election. Get over it, please.

what does your science background say about those Odds slick. BE HONEST what are the mathematical chances of 20,000 people voting and not a single vote being cast for the opposition. and now your sounding like Buzz. I have legitimate questions. for the sake of the integrity of the election these results should be questioned. I'm not advocating changing the results. but shouldn't we at least know?? how can 141% of the population vote??. do you not see the question there?

my scientific logic says that the 20,000 votes were a compilation made only of very small subgroups of around 50-70, all of whom voted for Romney. In other words, no one went and clustered a group of 20,000 voters from a section that wasn't cherry-picked from the whole. Completely bogus statistics.
The 141% thing is obviously wrong, BUT, Florida, if I recall, had such voting problems that some folks were allowed to vote out of district. I may be wrong, but that would explain the 141% part, otherwise, it is likely an error with using the wrong voter roll to make the calculation(which happens a lot,
local offices have voter rolls from 10 years back, etc).
My problem is with what seems to be an obsession over the final results of the Presidential election. You always see odd stuff, no matter who wins, but in this case, as always, the final outcome isn't really affected. You seem unwilling, almost stubborn, in going from forum to forum, bitching about voting tally details, or whether there was some goofy-assed coverup or lie told, to the point of getting annoying. I say this with a long-standing respect for your intellect, and your usual propensity for fair-mindedness on most matters. Get over it, MOVE FORWARD, there is a future ahead that means a lot to both of us, but even more so, our kids and grandkids. Nitpicking, finger-pointing and whining over pointless trivia is not helping anyone.


edit: what is equally creepy is to see you post this sort of stuff right after Fox News puts it up on their website. Really? Have you gotten that truly Unfair and Unbalanced? Try and read a few sources and then come post your own thoughts.....it works SO much better that way. For all of us.

Hey slick…have you ever kicked yourself during one of your knee jerk reactions?

Your need to defend “some” people is amazing. And of course there are some nice clean places here…duh.

just bustin' stones on that one Spidey......
oh, and here's what happened when folks just can't get over an election that didn't go their way:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11 ... oting?lite

callmeslick wrote:my scientific logic says that the 20,000 votes were a compilation made only of very small subgroups of around 50-70, all of whom voted for Romney. In other words, no one went and clustered a group of 20,000 voters from a section that wasn't cherry-picked from the whole. Completely bogus statistics.

thats bull★■◆● and you know it. not everyone in my own family agreed on who should be elected. and your going to tell me that 20000 people voted for the Democrat and more people voted for the independent party member than voted for Romney.

The 141% thing is obviously wrong, BUT, Florida, if I recall, had such voting problems that some folks were allowed to vote out of district. I may be wrong, but that would explain the 141% part, otherwise, it is likely an error with using the wrong voter roll to make the calculation(which happens a lot,
local offices have voter rolls from 10 years back, etc).

so how do we solve these inconsistencies. national voter ID?? oh I forgot the Democrats call that voter disenfranchisement.... A lie FWIW

My problem is with what seems to be an obsession over the final results of the Presidential election. You always see odd stuff, no matter who wins, but in this case, as always,

agreed

the final outcome isn't really affected.

thats a HUGE assumption on your part. you don't know that!! in Florida it obviously was.

You seem unwilling, almost stubborn, in going from forum to forum, bitching about voting tally details,

apparently yo pay as little attention to reality on this forum as you do in real life. I have never ONCE mentioned ANYTHING about voter tally in ANY other forum but this one. I called out Buzz for being a hypocrite, nothing more nothing less.

or whether there was some goofy-assed coverup or lie told, to the point of getting annoying. I say this with a long-standing respect for your intellect, and your usual propensity for fair-mindedness on most matters. Get over it, MOVE FORWARD,

one should never get over seeking for the truth

edit: what is equally creepy is to see you post this sort of stuff right after Fox News puts it up on their website. Really? Have you gotten that truly Unfair and Unbalanced? Try and read a few sources and then come post your own thoughts.....it works SO much better that way. For all of us.

I actually looked at about 20 different sites on this matter. how many have you looked at??

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:my scientific logic says that the 20,000 votes were a compilation made only of very small subgroups of around 50-70, all of whom voted for Romney. In other words, no one went and clustered a group of 20,000 voters from a section that wasn't cherry-picked from the whole. Completely bogus statistics.

thats **** and you know it. not everyone in my own family agreed on who should be elected. and your going to tell me that 20000 people voted for the Democrat and more people voted for the independent party member than voted for Romney.

yup, get over it.

The 141% thing is obviously wrong, BUT, Florida, if I recall, had such voting problems that some folks were allowed to vote out of district. I may be wrong, but that would explain the 141% part, otherwise, it is likely an error with using the wrong voter roll to make the calculation(which happens a lot,
local offices have voter rolls from 10 years back, etc).

so how do we solve these inconsistencies. national voter ID?? oh I forgot the Democrats call that voter disenfranchisement.... A lie FWIW

never more than .05% incidence of voter misrepresentation, in numerous studies. Case closed.

My problem is with what seems to be an obsession over the final results of the Presidential election. You always see odd stuff, no matter who wins, but in this case, as always,

agreed

the final outcome isn't really affected.

thats a HUGE assumption on your part. you don't know that!! in Florida it obviously was.

really? If the GOP had any inkling that they had a chance to win Florida, they would have contested it. They didn't.

You seem unwilling, almost stubborn, in going from forum to forum, bitching about voting tally details,

apparently yo pay as little attention to reality on this forum as you do in real life. I have never ONCE mentioned ANYTHING about voter tally in ANY other forum but this one. I called out Buzz for being a hypocrite, nothing more nothing less.

I said, had you put in the whole text of my words that you've been whining about other peripheral points.

or whether there was some goofy-assed coverup or lie told, to the point of getting annoying. I say this with a long-standing respect for your intellect, and your usual propensity for fair-mindedness on most matters. Get over it, MOVE FORWARD,

one should never get over seeking for the truth.

funny how some people perceive 'untruth' in trivia.......as I said before, GET OVER IT.

edit: what is equally creepy is to see you post this sort of stuff right after Fox News puts it up on their website. Really? Have you gotten that truly Unfair and Unbalanced? Try and read a few sources and then come post your own thoughts.....it works SO much better that way. For all of us.

I actually looked at about 20 different sites on this matter. how many have you looked at??

probably as many. Difference, I suspect is that I look a both known conservative and liberal sites, and mix in a few proven to be even handed. Fox needs to get over it, too. Its a darn shame they woke up on Wednesday last with egg on their collective faces, but the election is over. Move on.

callmeslick wrote:just bustin' stones on that one Spidey......
oh, and here's what happened when folks just can't get over an election that didn't go their way:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11 ... oting?lite

Vote or Die indeed.

Well there is one place where 100% of the people voting, vote for one candidate. I believe that place is North Korea. I have to agree with Cuda, statistically, 100% for one candidate is a bit beyond belief.

woodchip wrote:...statistically, 100% for one candidate is a bit beyond belief.

If it was "100%" for a city or a county, sure. But that's not the case.

Look at how they calculated that figure: They (cherry-)picked the 59 divisions out of over 1700 in a city which we know has heavy democratic areas, and added them all up to make an artificially-outrageous number.

Am I surprised that 3% of these tiny divisions in an urban area voted 100% democrat? Not at all. Just as I'd expect a small percentage of rural divisions in rural Oklahoma voted 100% republican.

oh, and as Foil noted in another thread, those 144% figures were NOT using registered voters but comparisons to prior turnout numbers. What a shocker, Fox sensationalized something, and the conservative blogosphere ran with the BS.

Heh, I'm under no illusions that sensationalism is limited to Fox / conservatives / bloggers. There were similar wacky accusations of election-fraud on the other side as well (e.g. the "voting machine changed my vote from Obama to Romney!" videos, etc.). Those would have similarly blown up had the election gone the other way.

[Edit: Interestingly, the most well-known "voting machine changed my vote to Romney" video was in PA as well. ]

I didn't get that stat from FOX, way to ASSUME though

callmeslick wrote:oh, and as Foil noted in another thread, those 144% figures were NOT using registered voters but comparisons to prior turnout numbers. What a shocker, Fox sensationalized something, and the conservative blogosphere ran with the BS.

Is that like the main stream news running with Harry Reid saying Romney didn't pay his tax's and is a felon?

Definitely similar.

I’m not surprised at x amount of districts had no votes for Romney, hell I’m surprised there weren’t complete wards.

Fox News has always got to find some reason or another that their guy didn't get the votes. Now they're insinuating that the Black Panthers were doing voter intimidation in Philly. Maybe that's why no one voted for Romney in Philly............

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... ting-site/

BUT, wasn't the tea party doing the same thing in a few other states?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/opini ... -2012.html

Top Gun wrote:I'd assume that Heretic is referring to the MOVE bombing, which occurred in 1985. (Coincidentally, my parents were flying back into Philly from their honeymoon the day it happened.) No criminal charges were ever filed against any city officials, but I don't really have any idea who it was that made the call to use the bomb.

and trying to tie it into a democrat mayor is hilarious at best. I would snicker at anyone trying to tie a republican to a bombing aswell. If it was a miscalculation on their part, that I can accept as it's reasonable for such a thing to happen. And in this case, it was a gross miscalculation. A massive tactical error on both the police chief's part and the Mayor's part. But to say or even imply that the mayor had any intention of causing such a tragedy is really, really reaching (and a little disturbing).

Spidey wrote:bull★■◆●, I lived thru it and seen it with my own eyes.

no, what's bull★■◆● is trying to make it out as if one person, be it democratic or republican, is responsible for destruction due to a bombing.

Well fine…you can blame the mayor, the police chief, the helicopter pilot, the guy who actually dropped the bomb, and the entire fire dept. for letting the entire damn block burn to the ground.

Of course there were many people involved. Might as well include the guy who fueled the helicopter, and the guy who brought him lunch.

Among others…ever heard the expression…”the buck stops here”

Spidey wrote:Well fine…you can blame the mayor, the police chief, the helicopter pilot, the guy who actually dropped the bomb, and the entire fire dept. for letting the entire damn block burn to the ground.

Of course there were many people involved. Might as well include the guy who fueled the helicopter, and the guy who brought him lunch.

Among others…ever heard the expression…”the buck stops here”

I'll agree with Spidey on this key point: it was, ultimately Wilson Goode's responsibility. Odd coincidence for me, as well.....I was living in Connecticut at the time, and was two weeks away from relocating to the Philly area. I must've had a half dozen friends call me up and say(essentially):"WTF? They're dropping bombs on row houses down there!"

I say if we can blame a president for all the financial woes of America we can blame a mayor for bombing.

or another president for letting planes fly into buildings.

Yes same Guy.

In certain areas of south Philly... I believe it. Even if some poor soul wanted to vote repub it wouldn't happen in the wrong spots.

I think it was about supporting a brother... what will happen next time when the candidate is white?

it'll be Joe Biden, and he's cool with the brothers.....

Yeah, good 'ole Chain Gang Biden. Blacks just don't realize it is the Democrats who have been keeping blacks in ideology chains for a long long time.