Replies

First, I don’t think we KNOW that Romney had no concession speech ready. That was a story that was leaked from someone on his campaign.

Second, Romney wouldn’t be the first candidate to decide the polls were wrong, and he could “sense” victory. You see huge crowds at your rallies and you can assume that means something. In fact, most politicians think they are going to win. Al Gore was sure, and Kerry was sure.

Third, Romney isn’t omniscient.

Fourth, you seem to be assuming there was massive fraud and that the election was stolen, and then asking why we haven’t seen the evidence for it. It could be you don’t see the quantitative estimate because there just isn’t evidence for the massive fraud you are hypothesizing.

I have no doubt that touch screen machines were out of calibration. You hear reports because when people touched one name, the other was selected. Every report you hear comes from someonen who noticed and got their vote right. Nobody says “I finally gave up and just voted for Obama”.

There was a youtube video of a touch screen voting for ROmney when Obama was pressed. there is a calibration they can do, or they take machines out of service. I’m not a fan of touch screens, but not only does every touch highlight the pick, most of the time after it does, you have to hit “next” to go to the next page, and when you reach the end they put up your entire ballot, and you have to confirm it again.

So yes, people who aren’t paying attention could get it wrong. But we already assume that the democrats are more likely to mess up their voting than the republicans (butterfly ballot being the prime example).

If you compare the election results to the RCP poll final averages, you won’t find anything amiss. Romney was already in tough shape before Sandy, and Sandy gave a significant bump to Obama.

The only polls Romney was leading that he lost were the national polls, which don’t mean anything in a presidential election, and therefore aren’t necessarily accurate. There are so few people polled, and you can’t judge turnout on a state-by-state basis. What the actual results show is that Obama’s team focused on the swing states, and did much better relatively in turnout where they knew they needed it.

I firmly believe that we should analyze the election results for signs of fraud, and should vigorously pursue the investigations.

What I object to is assuming the results based on our own feelings, because it makes us look silly. Allen West had it right — he saw problems, he fought until he got a recount for those problems, but when that recount didn’t help him, he conceded.

In my opinion, what democrats did well was not “fraudulent votes”, it was “disinterested votes”. They have a long-term program and it is very effective. They find out what people who don’t vote care about, and then they target messages about those specific things, and then they do personal contact to get those non-voters to register and vote.

I saw this at my daughter’s college. EVERY time I visited this year, someone would ask her if she was registered. They had tables out and were doing events to bring kids in, where they could register them. All the while telling them something OBama would do that was targeted at college kids.

It was “cool” to register and vote for Obama. These are kids who had no clue about anything. These are kids who can be talked into going to a party for the fun of it, can be talked into joining clubs just to be part of the gang, and therefore can easily be turned into Obama voters. I NEVER saw a Romney or RNC person walking around, and nothing suggests we tried to give PEER SUPPORT to kids who would want to vote republican.

Last thing, I know this is long. Remember back when George Stephanapolis asked that bizarre question about banning birth control? That was before the HHS mandate. But someone TOLD him to ask that question. It set up an entire campaign tactic. HHS mandate was part of that campaign tactic, as was Sandra Fluke.

I am convinced that was targeted at a group of women of voting age who showed no interest in voting, and weren’t registered, but whom studies showed would be upset about religious interference with their birth control. Obama targeted them with this campaign, we all laughed, and I bet he registered 200,000 people and got them to vote for that one issue alone. It wouldn’t show up in polls (200,000 out of 100 million?) But spread out in the 10 swing states, that would be 1/10th of the margin of victory right there.

We all thought “get Obama out” was sufficient reason to vote for Romney. But a lot of people didn’t care about who is President, and they needed reasons to vote FOR our side.