The Case of the Missing White Voters (7,000,000 of them!)

the more I hear about these strange results the more I am convinced that something is not right.

WI, FL, VA, OH are all states which seem to have the most questions then there are the other races like Mia Love and a race down in NV.
Both up quite a lot and yet they lose.

I’m going to guess it was a lot of Ron Paul voters. They didn’t like Obama. They didn’t like what happened at the convention and they said screw it and didn’t vote.

A lot of Ron Paul stalwarts didn't vote (or voted for Gary Johnson), but I don't think they account for that many voters.

Look at it like a hidden “Perot” vote that cost Bush against Clinton. There’s also a lot of people out there that think the system is broken and don’t think anyone can fix it. They’ve given up.

That's probably closer. Think rural voters in areas in economic decline. They're conservative in many things, but all this talk about millionaire Romney and Bain capital really turned them off. They might have been Perot voters in the Nineties, or small "c" conservatives who weren't enthusiastic about Reagan in the Eighties because of farm forclosures.

Both candidates concentrated on the swing states. Vote totals in those states went up. They ignored states that were already decidedly in one camp or the other, and vote totals in those states went down. People figured their voting wouldn't affect the result. Also, there may have been organized campaigns to get minority voters to the polls, something that would have been harder to set up for the larger White population. That's my hypothesis anyway.

You place an extremely high burden of proof for there being voter fraud. Observation is not proof but if observation is directly opposite of the supposed conclusion then something is wrong. The election results contradict what I and almost everyone else has observed. A logical person would ask why that is so. A logical person would not simply conclude that there could not possibly have been widespread voter fraud as you have done. A logical person would not make statements about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny

A logical person would not in the first instance assume a massive nationwide conspiracy involving thousands of people who secretly act in concert in order to commit a fraud. A logical person would first look for a simple explanation to explain personal observations and then move on to more elaborate schemes only when the simple explanations fail.

I too saw long lines to vote at my precinct and I assumed a record turnout based upon those observations. When our Republican Congressman lost, I too sensed that something was fishy given the voter turnout in a traditionally Republican district. The reality, however, according to a Republican poll watcher (who happens to be my neighbor) is that there were a small number of highly motivated voters who couldn't wait to vote who all showed up at the same time first thing in the morning. The line at 6:30 am was much longer then at 8:00 am when I normally vote and so I incorrectly assumed a record turnout based upon my observations. But according to my neighbor the pollwatcher, the lines were significantly shorter than usual as the day dragged on and when the polls closed at 9:00 pm, the number of voters was way down from previous years. A logical person looks for the simple and obvious explanations first before assuming vast left-wing conspiracy that would be nearly impossible to carry out without leaving a trail of objective, uncontroverted evidence.

You have no proof there was NOT widespread voter fraud. Just say you don't know. It is more honest. It is more logical.

I have no proof that Romney doesn't beat his wife either, so that must logically mean that he beats his wife, right?

You place an extremely high burden of proof for there being voter fraud. Observation is not proof but if observation is directly opposite of the supposed conclusion then something is wrong. The election results contradict what I and almost everyone else has observed. A logical person would ask why that is so. A logical person would not simply conclude that there could not possibly have been widespread voter fraud as you have done. A logical person would not make statements about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny

A logical person would not in the first instance assume a massive nationwide conspiracy involving thousands of people who secretly act in concert in order to commit a fraud. A logical person would first look for a simple explanation to explain personal observations and then move on to more elaborate schemes only when the simple explanations fail.

I too saw long lines to vote at my precinct and I assumed a record turnout based upon those observations. When our Republican Congressman lost, I too sensed that something was fishy given the voter turnout in a traditionally Republican district. The reality, however, according to a Republican poll watcher (who happens to be my neighbor) is that there were a small number of highly motivated voters who couldn't wait to vote who all showed up at the same time first thing in the morning. The line at 6:30 am was much longer then at 8:00 am when I normally vote and so I incorrectly assumed a record turnout based upon my observations. But according to my neighbor the pollwatcher, the lines were significantly shorter than usual as the day dragged on and when the polls closed at 9:00 pm, the number of voters was way down from previous years. A logical person looks for the simple and obvious explanations first before assuming vast left-wing conspiracy that would be nearly impossible to carry out without leaving a trail of objective, uncontroverted evidence.

You have no proof there was NOT widespread voter fraud. Just say you don't know. It is more honest. It is more logical.

I have no proof that Romney doesn't beat his wife either, so that must logically mean that he beats his wife, right?

BTW, check out the same writer's article, "Did JFK Lose the Popular Vote?."

It's fascinating, and it's not at all what you might think.

You missed my point.

I am not assuming there was wide spread voter fraud. I am saying the voting numbers released and the MSM storyline don't make sense. Therefore, I have to conclude something is happening that is not explained. Widespread voter fraud is one possible hypothesis. There are precincts showing turnout at around 100% with over 99% of the total vote going for Obama. There are over 7 million “missing” white votes. There were long lines reported all day and waits of over an hour in many polling places but it is claimed that the total votes were less than in 2008.

I do not, therefore, conclude that there is no voter fraud. I conclude something is not true and the widespread voter fraud is a likely explanation. I also say I don't know what the answer is. I just know something isn't right.

bfl

Interesting how so much of the post-election analysis centers on race.