Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unskewed Polling' Creator Launches New Site On How Obama's Win Might Be Based On Voter Fraud
Business Insider ^ | 11/21/2012 | Brett LoGiurato

Posted on 11/21/2012 7:32:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind

The creator of the so-called "Unskewed" Polling site is now unskewing the actual votes.

Last week, Dean Chambers — who admitted he was wrong about the polls shortly after the election — launched BarackOFraudo.com, which attempts to expose "how they stole the election."

Its premise centers on the admittedly eye-popping fact that Republican Mitt Romney received sometimes as little as zero votes in certain precincts in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Chambers also alleges that there are "questions" with how votes were counted in Florida and Virginia.

You see where this is going — without those four states, President Barack Obama has only 250 electoral votes. With those four states, Romney wins the election.

Chambers stops short of saying this is an example of outright voter fraud. But he insists he is trying to simply raise the questions based on what he considers "reputable reports."

"The challenge, of course, in dealing with any voter fraud issues is that the people that do this are good at covering their tracks," Chambers told Business Insider on Tuesday. "In many instances, the evidence that is available is very circumstantial. But there are lopsided votes in a number of areas that suggest ballots could be stuffed."

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conartist; conspiracytheory; fraud; itsonlymakebelieve; obama; polling; unskewedpolling

DEAN CHAMBERS, The creator of the so-called "Unskewed" Polling site
1 posted on 11/21/2012 7:33:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

might?


2 posted on 11/21/2012 7:34:28 AM PST by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Whether it is or isn’t, it will never be investigated or challenged by anyone who could do anything about it.


3 posted on 11/21/2012 7:36:16 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
'Unskewed' Pollster: 'Nate Silver Was Right, And I Was Wrong'

Every time a FReeper willingly lowers themselves into the chill, dead darkness of 9/11 "trutherism," or cognitively flatulent Election Day conspiracy theories, or chimpanzee puckerings on how infant innoculations cause autism, or any one of a dozen other gibbering dead ends: the enduring intellectual legacy of Hamilton and Webster, Reagan and Buckley, takes another direct hit, midships.

I certainly don't mind if any of Silver's former (or, Lord help us all, current) fannish cargo cult ultimately decide to cast him as Part and Parcel of the Great and Awful Anti-Mittens Campaign Swindle -- he is, IMHO, a peculiarly bumbling and inelegant confidence trickster; thus deserving of conservatives' scorn, and little else -- but: they are going to have to deal with his own highly public record of hugely inappropriate burblings (such as the example posted, directly above), somewhere along the way.

4 posted on 11/21/2012 7:39:22 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This guy is an idiot. The entire notion that one could “unskew” polls was laughable. That so many conservatives bought into it was just sad.


5 posted on 11/21/2012 7:57:57 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
The entire notion that one could “unskew” polls was laughable. That so many conservatives bought into it was just sad.

Thank you. Seriously. I was genuinely beginning to despair whether the adult population of this site had all gone full-bore, weapons-grade batsqueak insane. You've reassured me that this isn't so. ;)

6 posted on 11/21/2012 8:03:09 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I’m sorry, but you are wrong.

Romney was an innocent who was blindsided and dismayed to find that his solid win was turned to a loss.

I have been there, done that, and have the T-shirt.

This is not a suspicion, I have EVIDENCE:

My short booklet on vote fraud and how to fight it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1991953/posts

Report on 2010 election and new fraud methods:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2621405/posts

More vote fraud methods:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2378786/posts


7 posted on 11/21/2012 8:18:38 AM PST by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: darth
I have EVIDENCE

... and to which major news organizations and/or legal enforcement agencies have you sent this hard, irrefutable "evidence," specifically...?

Who is going to be tried in a court of law, thanks to this evidence? Which reporter(s) will be scooping up a coveted Pulitzer Prize, for blowing the lid off the biggest political cover-up of the past two hundred years? Which named malefactors -- linked, again, to hard and unyielding evidence -- will be facing jail time, as a direct result?

9/11 truthers are always claiming to have uncovered fresh, damning "evidence" in support of their conspiracy theories, as well... but: no one ever actually sees the inside of a prison cell, regardless.

Lop off some demonstrably guilty bastard's head with it. That, I'll gladly accept as proof positive.

8 posted on 11/21/2012 8:30:32 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Doogle

So what? No one has the courage to do anything about it.


9 posted on 11/21/2012 8:50:50 AM PST by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chris37

We all knew that. The livers of the lie, the liberal leftists and the liberal dems made sure all the ts were crossed. If you oppose the election you are a racist/bigot. The black white president was sure to win no matter what. But, sometimes you get what you wish for so for the next 4 years we will see if this president is still the peoples choice.


10 posted on 11/21/2012 8:52:54 AM PST by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy
Livers of the lie?


11 posted on 11/21/2012 9:00:02 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

“... and to which major news organizations and/or legal enforcement agencies have you sent this hard, irrefutable “evidence,” specifically...? “

Are you SERIOUS?? We could have video proof of voter fraud and the “major news organizations” and even legal enforcement agencies (Hello? Holder?!!) would laugh in our face.

The reality is that even if voter fraud occurred (my local newspaper headline today announced that voters had cast ballots twice) nothing will be done about it. We’re living in a third world country where the media and enforcement agencies are so corrupt/biased that the rule of law doesn’t have a chance.


12 posted on 11/21/2012 9:05:24 AM PST by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I’ve never seen a lying liver before. Interesting.


13 posted on 11/21/2012 9:08:21 AM PST by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Reddy
Are you SERIOUS??

Infinitely more intelligent (and pertinent) question: are you?

You're seriously advancing the claim that there's no one (for instance) at FOX who'd appreciate being able to break the single most gargantuan political story in all of U.S. history? No one at the National Review -- which only endorsed Mittens (TWICE!!!), after all -- would voluntarily afford such mammoth revelations a sympathetic ear? RUSH LIMBAUGH and/or DRUDGE wouldn't willingly sell off significant portions of their respective immortal souls to be the ones to forevermore tar Herr Zero in each and every grade school history book written over the following millennium -- ?!?

I mean... seriously? THAT'S your absolute best -- what you're really, truly going with?

Take another shot at it. ;)

14 posted on 11/21/2012 9:17:26 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The entire notion that one could “unskew” polls was laughable. That so many conservatives bought into it was just sad.

Thank you. Seriously. I was genuinely beginning to despair whether the adult population of this site had all gone full-bore, weapons-grade batsqueak insane. You've reassured me that this isn't so. ;)

I need to nuance this. (I'm indulging in "verbing" here.) Dollars to doughnuts, I agree with you and many others on 99 percent of everything, and will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you as the SHTF. So take this fraternally.

I really treasure the pungent imagery and elegant scansion of the expression "full-bore, weapons-grade, batsqueak insane." I also treasure reality. But some FReepers seem to operate on the premise that we're NOT at war. They seem to assume that 1) sitting on your backside and whining that "America is gone," or 2) furiously attacking a fellow right-winger who has a theory more impractical than your own, or 3) planning to hide out somewhere where Holder can't find you, are adult responses to the current situation. They're not. We are at war—the current admin and his agents are actively at war with us. We don't have the leisure to pretend otherwise. War is total, and will require irrational as well as rational resistance, and above all a bias toward action.

Someone has an imperfectly conceived or described theory of how the election was stolen? So what. Point out any flaws of methodology or thinking, by all means. But any noise or trouble—anything—that undermines the peace of mind or credibility of the current admin and his illegal regime helps. Case in point: Were the 9/11 Truthers and Not in Our Namers transparently crazy and stupid? You bet. Did they damage national unity and the effectiveness of our war against the Moslems when it really counted, in 2001-2002? Absolutely. We can't be blind to the value of random resistance from our own side that distracts the current admin and raises vague doubts among the people.

It's true that, unlike the DNC, we put ethical limits on the allies we can work with. But we can't afford to be like the RINOs, who lose because they are afraid to associate with people from the wrong ZIP code.

I don't know if Mao Tse-Tung (may he and his co-conspirators roast like chestnuts in hell) said it, but if he did, he was right: "Many tiny pebbles break the glass." Yes, we need some big rocks, too. But you never know which pebble will start the crack that blows it all open. Carry on!

15 posted on 11/21/2012 9:29:37 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
Someone has an imperfectly conceived or described theory of how the election was stolen? So what. Point out any flaws of methodology or thinking, by all means.

Agreed, absolutely. Hence, #8 and #14, in this very thread. ;)

I'm being perfectly straightforward, as always. Can I be convinced that I'm in error, re: my increasingly concrete suspicion that -- after all the chest-puffing and arm-waving and hopping about like a bunch of hyper-caffeinated howler monkeys -- this whole "stolen election" business is nothing more substantial or actionable than a peculiarly virulent online pathogen, wafted from hysteric to well-meaning hysteric? Absolutely, and without question.

The burden of proof, however, certainly isn't on me, to (somehow) "prove" a negative. "Extraordinary claims," to quote a scientific truism, "require extraordinary evidence."

I've detailed the absolute barest minimum I'd be willing to accept, as "evidence" that Mitt Romney was (as baldly stated by the claimant) "an innocent who was blindsided" -- specifically, handing over said evidence to any one of several highly influential conservative-leaning news sources, and allow them to break said story... something anyone claiming to be in open sympathy with Mitt Romney should be absolutely overjoyed to be able to do, wouldn't you think?

This is both practicable and reasonable, by any sane and rational measure. I now patiently await the grand unveiling. ;)

16 posted on 11/21/2012 9:46:12 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The burden of proof, however, certainly isn't on me, to (somehow) "prove" a negative.

Correct. I'm suggesting that you stop trying. It accomplishes nothing. Even if someone's theory is off, and he is reasonably sincere, he can help by raising doubts about Zippy's credibility. Anything negative is damaging. And however unwashed the theorist may be, he could surprise us and be right.

It's not enough to prove our case to each other with parsimonious perfection. We have to win the war with the DNCPUSA, who care nothing for logic.

17 posted on 11/21/2012 10:02:06 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
It's not enough to prove our case to each other with parsimonious perfection.

You, I am guessing (re: line quoted, above) regard requiring even the merest, most minute morsel of evidence in support of an extraordinary claim -- my request, remember -- as being in search of "parsimonious perfection."

In the same fraternal spirit as the discussion was begun: we're simply going to have to disagree on any such definition as infinitely (and, IMHO, unreasonably) elastic as all of that, I'm afraid. ;)

Again: I wait patiently... although not (in all perfect candor) with any great expectations. Ah, well.

18 posted on 11/21/2012 10:17:44 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy

But the thing is, it doesn’t matter if he is the people’s choice or not any longer. Their choice is now not relevent.

It just so happens that they think they won here and are in agreement with the selection, but in time they will find out how he is not for them at all, and they will try to change their circumstance and find that they cannot.

This is why I laugh at those people who try to mock us for losing. Take that they say. Ok, fine, I’ll take it, but so will you, and what’s funny is that you did it to yourself and you are too stupid to even know it.

Those “voters” are but a means to an end, and once that end has been achieved, the means will no longer be needed, and they will be dealt with at that time. I hope I am alive to see that day.


19 posted on 11/21/2012 10:18:45 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
You're seriously advancing the claim that there's no one (for instance) at FOX who'd appreciate being able to break the single most gargantuan political story in all of U.S. history? No one at the National Review -- which only endorsed Mittens (TWICE!!!), after all -- would voluntarily afford such mammoth revelations a sympathetic ear? RUSH LIMBAUGH and/or DRUDGE wouldn't willingly sell off significant portions of their respective immortal souls to be the ones to forevermore tar Herr Zero in each and every grade school history book written over the following millennium -- ?!?

Something I learned to great disappointment was that folks are on our side, fellow conservatives, are every bit as susceptible to falling for loopy conspiracy theories as our opponents on the left. Intelligence doesn't even really matter here and is not a decisive determining factor as to whether a person becomes a conspiracy theorists. I've known some extremely sharp people that believed in all sorts of zany conspiracies. I believe what happens is that human beings have a world view, and when an event(s) doesn't fit neatly into it some people begin blaming nefarious conspirators for altering what should have been.

Saying that. There is certainly nothing wrong with thinking out of the box. A good investigator may have all sorts of theories that don't pan out. Nothing wrong with speculating. The problem is when folks advance theories publicly that do not have reasonable evidence to back them up. Those same people then become emotionally invested in their argument and can become fanatical conspiracy theorists.

When elections are lost people blame voter fraud. The left does it, and the right does it too. Are there some instances of cheating? Sure, there always is some of that. But it just doesn't account for enough to have changed the overall election results. Blaming fraud will not help us one bit. We lost, people need to deal with it.

20 posted on 11/21/2012 11:03:14 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
I've known some extremely sharp people that believed in all sorts of zany conspiracies.

Oh, absolutely! ;) I post regularly over at the James Randi Educational Forum, in the anti-conspiracy-wacko-oriented sections -- the politically-themed ones, sadly, are excessively and ultra-oppressively liberal -- and we continually get all sorts showing up there, attempting to convince us (for instance) that "9/11 was an inside job by [Bush/Rove/Cheney/Da JOOOOOOOOOS/Insert Favorite Conspiracy Boogeyman Here], maaaaaannnnnnnnnnn." They range in demonstrable intelligence from dullard (the vast majority, admittedly) to really quite bright, in one given area or another.

Anyone entering said fora intending to advance any extraordinary sort of claim is routinely subjected to infinitely harsher and more exacting grilling than the (comparatively) polite little burp I offered up earlier, in this very thread. ;) All of we assembled there, you see, are conversant in one or more of the "hard" scientific (or mathematical) disciplines... and woe, woe betide any foolish claimant airily attempting to "prove" something that cannot/does not hold up to even a baseline level of inquiry from a cranky chemist, physicist or engineer!

Are there some instances of cheating? Sure, there always is some of that. But it just doesn't account for enough to have changed the overall election results. Blaming fraud will not help us one bit. We lost, people need to deal with it.

This. This, plainly and obviously. This. This. ;)

21 posted on 11/21/2012 11:18:30 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
But it just doesn't account for enough to have changed the overall election results.

That's a strong claim. I think that various articles and postings have shown that the extreme turnout in big cities in 4 critical states made the difference in the election.

Next you'll be telling me that the Federal Reserve really is there to protect the value of the dollar, and that any thinking to the contrary (that they may be there to protect the banks thievery) is a loopy conspiracy theory.

Election fraud has been common place in this country for a long time, well documented under names like 'Tammany Hall'. Since when have we all become such angels that serious election fraud is unthinkable. The actual mechanics of election fraud have just become easier over time with motor voter, early voting, and electronic voting machines. Usually when you find crime becoming easier, and punishment less likely and lighter, you get more crime. And the reward has just become greater, as the government became bigger.

Did you believe J. Edgar Hoover was right when he claimed that the idea of the Mafia was just a myth?

22 posted on 11/21/2012 12:02:37 PM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: slowhandluke
I think that various articles and postings have shown that the extreme turnout in big cities in 4 critical states made the difference in the election.

You know the election really wasn't all that close right? I mean, Hussein won by over 4 million votes. Obama won by over 3%. It would have been more fishy had Romney won those handful of swing states and lost the popular vote by 3.5 million votes or so. The final popular vote results are more decisive than they originally appeared on election night.

Next you'll be telling me that the Federal Reserve really is there to protect the value of the dollar, and that any thinking to the contrary (that they may be there to protect the banks thievery) is a loopy conspiracy theory.

Sounds like your slipping into Paultard territory here. I am not a Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists. InfoWars might be the right place for you.

There has always been some election fraud. No doubt about it. But at current count Obama has 50.8% of the vote to Romney's 47.5%. Greater than 3%. It's really not that close. We didn't lose because of vote fraud. Exit polling is a better place to look for reasons why we lost.

23 posted on 11/21/2012 12:52:13 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Did you even read the information that I posted?

Comparing real felonies to 9/11 Truthers is insulting. Yes, muzzie terrorists are solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

I have provided interviews with the Orange County Register and LA Times. I showed them the evidence that about 50% of registered voters across 7 precincts did not exist. Not a word made it into print.

I provided an annotated Voter Roll to Gail P., a vote fraud investigator with the California Attorney General’s Office. No investigation occurred and no charges were pursued. However, this man who had been investigating vote fraud for more than 20 years did provide some wisdom. He said, “The candidate willing to commit the most felonies always wins”.

The FBI was contacted by a colleague of mine, Bill W., regarding massive fraud in Port Arthur, Texas. At first the FBI seemed very interested. Then Bill W. was threatened by a group of union thugs. Then an attempt was made on W.’s life when his car was sabotaged. Injured in the crash and broke, he stopped pursuing vote fraud. He called the FBI and they told him they had been instructed by their superiors to drop the investigation.

Get the picture yet?

The pubbies need to do a better job of campaigning, etc. This is a necessary but not SUFFICIENT condition to win elections.

We now have a Chicago style Machine that runs coast to coast. Deal with that.


24 posted on 11/21/2012 1:17:11 PM PST by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Reddy

Thanks, FRiend.

I cannot figure whether some of these guys are just naive or whether they are trolls.

I have been out on the streets and in the trenches for decades now. You said it right; the corruption is 3rd world level now and the media covers for them.


25 posted on 11/21/2012 1:21:10 PM PST by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

In my experience vote fraud has ranged from negligible to almost 50%. In the Port Arthur case in 1998 it was almost 100% for that precinct that I staked out. The dims had no get-out-the-vote effort at all. The dim precinct crew just signed the book and cast a ballot for everyone. Voila! 100% turnout.

Based on my many experiences, I think it totals 5-10% of the vote in Presidential elections. That’s significant.


26 posted on 11/21/2012 2:38:13 PM PST by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
The 3% overall doesn't mean that much when looking at election fraud. You can get 1/3 of that just from California and New York. You have to look at the electoral college and the swing states to see whether or not a few precincts can change the electoral college. Next you'll be telling me that Allen West's election, or Al Franken's election before that were clean. Al Gore can talk to you about one district in FL, and the impact on the electoral college.

The Fed are bankers and do what bankers do, in their own interest and the interest of other bankers. No special conspiracy theory is needed. That's the magic of the 'conspiracy theory nut idea'. The world is full of folks going about in groups saying one thing, and doing another. Yet point out one such case, and you are branded an nut. The Obama wing of the Democratic Party wants to turn this country into a socialist paradise. Or is that yet another conspiracy nut theory.

Following Ron Paul's investment practices over the last 20 years would have been a better idea than following Goldman Sachs ideas. I'm not saying it was the best idea out there, just that he's not the fool you assume on economic matters.

27 posted on 11/23/2012 8:42:32 AM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson