Pennsylvania Was Stolen

[Ebowed]

A November 11, 2006 survey of 800 likely voters showed Bob Casey, Jr. leading Senator Rick Santorum by only four points, just barely outside of the margin of error.  An October 8 survey conducted by Muhlenberg College showed Santorum trailing Casey by a mere five points, again just barely outside of the margin of error.  As was just demonstrated, all reasonable expectations were that the race would be close, and when considering the general bias in favor of Democratic candidates among polling services, a prediction of a Santorum victory by one to three points was the most accurate, based on the available information.

Yet allegedly official results as reported by CNN.com show Casey's margin of victory to be 698,205 votes, or 18%.  Obviously incompatible with the polling results described above, this unusual certified result prompts sketipical minds to wonder if perhaps Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro Cortes -- not known for his excellence in election administration -- allowed vote tampering, fraud, and intimidation to take place.  While Governor Rendell's defeat of Lynn Swann is easily explained by the racist beliefs of much of the Pennsylvanian electorate, there is no such cause that can be discerned which would allow Senator Rick Santorum to be beaten by Bob Casey, Jr. by such a wide margin.

As it turns out, "massive problems" were reported with the voting machines in 37 counties.  Voters attempting to exercize their constitutional right to cast a ballot for Senator Rick Santorum were denied this right when the screen showed a vote for Bob Casey, Jr. appearing instead.  Additionally, there were two reports of votes for Lynn Swann being recorded for Ed Rendell, cutting Swann's statewide total in half, though these problems were not as widespread as those affecting Senator Rick Santorum and would not have altered the end election result if corrected.  Problems were so prevalent that voting had to be extended to 9 p.m. in Lebanon County, after every major news organization had already called a victory for Bob Casey, Jr.

The only solution to rectify these discrepancies is to hold a new election with paper ballots.  Rick Santorum's re-election would be a stunning blow to the fraudulent Democrats controlling Pennsylvania's executive branch.

[Gabu]

what

[Keystone Phil]

Of course it was.

In all seriousness, though, there were many problems but clearly not enough to swing the election.

[Alcon]

Hahaha.

Greg Palast is a moron.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course it was.

In all seriousness, though, there were many problems but clearly not enough to swing the election.

I'm glad you have finally embraced stealing elections as was evident in Senate races in Virginia, Montana and Pennsylvania.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hahaha.

Greg Palast is a moron.

Yeah, what a moron he was for reporting on that Florida voter scrub list with all of the innocent blacks on it.

[Keystone Phil]

Of course it was.

In all seriousness, though, there were many problems but clearly not enough to swing the election.

I'm glad you have finally embraced stealing elections as was evident in Senate races in Virginia, Montana and Pennsylvania.

Your inability to detect sarcasm makes my eyes bleed.

[Deano963]

Holy crap Ebowed! You found Phil's dissertation....er, I mean Remediated English term paper....um, I mean diary entry for Nov. 9th, 2006.

[Nym90]

Well given that he blamed Swann's defeat on racism, I guess it only makes sense that he would think Santorum won, given that he has a highly skewed view of Pennsylvania as a whole (and in the rightward direction). I also love the whole "polls are biased toward Democrats" assertion....assuming that polls are 6 to 8 points too Democratic on average is asinine to begin with, and then of course he cherry picked the two very closest polls (ignoring the consensus of the polls which was a double digit Casey lead).

Oh yeah, and trying to pull the Florida 2000 argument that the race was called before all the polls closed and of course that cost Santorum the race. I was actually surprised it wasn't called right at 8:00 given what the final margin turned out to be, but obviously news organizations are pretty cautious in making calls ever since Florida 2000.

[Rob]

Amazing article!

[12th Doctor]

While I don't think it made the difference, I know of several instances of the touch screen problem having occured.

[Padfoot]

Sanotorum was a right-winger in a left-leaning state during a bad year for Republicans.  Its not called stealing when there's an 18 point spread, its called an ass kicking.

[bullmoose88]

Well given that he blamed Swann's defeat on racism, I guess it only makes sense that he would think Santorum won, given that he has a highly skewed view of Pennsylvania as a whole (and in the rightward direction).

Exit polls

African American: Rendell 87% Swann 13%

So that must mean that the almost 90% of African Americans that voted for Rendell are themselves racist (or at least self-hating).

Doesn't make sense, does it? Seems a lot of Repubs still have yet to learn that ideology trumps skin color. Same can be said about Steele and Blackwell. Ideology trumps skin color.

It may not be an ideology thing...

Party ID trumps skin color. (Slightly different, and the difference varies in cases based on ideology)

[Mike in Maryland]

A November 11, 2006 survey of 800 likely voters showed Bob Casey, Jr. leading Senator Rick Santorum by only four points, just barely outside of the margin of error.  An October 8 survey conducted by Muhlenberg College showed Santorum trailing Casey by a mere five points, again just barely outside of the margin of error.  As was just demonstrated, all reasonable expectations were that the race would be close, and when considering the general bias in favor of Democratic candidates among polling services, a prediction of a Santorum victory by one to three points was the most accurate, based on the available information.

11/11/06 was AFTER the election.  And assuming the data (whenever it was taken) was good, the problem may have been with their sample or estimation of "likely voter" turnout.  Maybe they undercounted Pittsburgh and Philadelphia?

[Rob]

Maybe they undercounted Pittsburgh and Philadelphia?

... or the vote was rigged. I for one am inclined to trust data from a nonpartisan polling firm over a tally that's certified by a partisan Democratic official.

[Mike in Maryland]

Maybe they undercounted Pittsburgh and Philadelphia?

... or the vote was rigged. I for one am inclined to trust data from a nonpartisan polling firm over a tally that's certified by a partisan Democratic official.

Well, since Casey won by 18% and Rendell by more than 20%, I don't think that explains it.  Any vote rigging would have to have been really obvious and egregious for anyone to credibly claim that the GOP would have won in a fair vote.  Even machine Democrats (or Republicans) can't manufacture that many wrong votes in this day and age.

[Keystone Phil]

By the way, this is still very true. I thank Ebowed for his assistance in the fight to uncover this fraud.

[minionofmidas]

I *think* the original post is sarcastic.
I'm just wondering... who's it poking fun at?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

A November 11, 2006 survey of 800 likely voters showed Bob Casey, Jr. leading Senator Rick Santorum by only four points, just barely outside of the margin of error.  An October 8 survey conducted by Muhlenberg College showed Santorum trailing Casey by a mere five points, again just barely outside of the margin of error.  As was just demonstrated, all reasonable expectations were that the race would be close, and when considering the general bias in favor of Democratic candidates among polling services, a prediction of a Santorum victory by one to three points was the most accurate, based on the available information.

11/11/06 was AFTER the election.  And assuming the data (whenever it was taken) was good, the problem may have been with their sample or estimation of "likely voter" turnout.  Maybe they undercounted Pittsburgh and Philadelphia?

terrorist

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

A November 11, 2006 survey of 800 likely voters showed Bob Casey, Jr. leading Senator Rick Santorum by only four points, just barely outside of the margin of error.  An October 8 survey conducted by Muhlenberg College showed Santorum trailing Casey by a mere five points, again just barely outside of the margin of error.  As was just demonstrated, all reasonable expectations were that the race would be close, and when considering the general bias in favor of Democratic candidates among polling services, a prediction of a Santorum victory by one to three points was the most accurate, based on the available information.

Yet allegedly official results as reported by CNN.com show Casey's margin of victory to be 698,205 votes, or 18%.  Obviously incompatible with the polling results described above, this unusual certified result prompts sketipical minds to wonder if perhaps Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro Cortes -- not known for his excellence in election administration -- allowed vote tampering, fraud, and intimidation to take place.  While Governor Rendell's defeat of Lynn Swann is easily explained by the racist beliefs of much of the Pennsylvanian electorate, there is no such cause that can be discerned which would allow Senator Rick Santorum to be beaten by Bob Casey, Jr. by such a wide margin.

As it turns out, "massive problems" were reported with the voting machines in 37 counties.  Voters attempting to exercize their constitutional right to cast a ballot for Senator Rick Santorum were denied this right when the screen showed a vote for Bob Casey, Jr. appearing instead.  Additionally, there were two reports of votes for Lynn Swann being recorded for Ed Rendell, cutting Swann's statewide total in half, though these problems were not as widespread as those affecting Senator Rick Santorum and would not have altered the end election result if corrected.  Problems were so prevalent that voting had to be extended to 9 p.m. in Lebanon County, after every major news organization had already called a victory for Bob Casey, Jr.

The only solution to rectify these discrepancies is to hold a new election with paper ballots.  Rick Santorum's re-election would be a stunning blow to the fraudulent Democrats controlling Pennsylvania's executive branch.

  times a lot, now back to homework

[TeePee4Prez]

this is a bunch of bs

I agree.  It seems if the Democrats win PA because of Philadelphia, everyone wants to cry voter fraud.  One local PAC that claims it's non-partisan, but I beg to differ, says that the 2000 and 2004 numbers are inconsistent with past voting patterns, but if you look at past results, they correlate with the decline in population.  

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

this is a bunch of bs

I agree.  It seems if the Democrats win PA because of Philadelphia, everyone wants to cry voter fraud.  One local PAC that claims it's non-partisan, but I beg to differ, says that the 2000 and 2004 numbers are inconsistent with past voting patterns, but if you look at past results, they correlate with the decline in population.  

basicly, yeah

[Ebowed]

this is a bunch of bs

You just can't handle the truth.

[TeePee4Prez]

this is a bunch of bs

You just can't handle the truth.

No Ebowed.  This is BS.

[Keystone Phil]

this is a bunch of bs

You just can't handle the truth.

No Ebowed.  This is BS.

Wow. It really is a shame how people can't accept when things are completely meant for laughs.

By the way, Flyers, you are pretty foolish if you can't admit that there is some serious voter fraud in this city.