Iowa GOP Vote Fraud & Electioneering

[Sammich]

Looks like this is just how it went down tonight.

Iowa radio stream captured with Faux News Republican Strategist Dee Dee Benkie; affirming that the Iowa GOP is planning to manipulate the vote by whatever means necessary in order to prevent a first place win for Ron Paul on January 3rd, 2012. Paul likely to be forced into a 'margin of error' against Flip-Flop Mittens & Rick Fecal Matter for plausible deniability of Election Fraud.

From her is disclosure of the Iowa GOP's definitive *plans* to inhibit a first-place win by Congressman Paul, not just by shoulder-persuation at the county caucus locations, but via behind-the-scenes trickery. Such as their 'secret vote' count announced *just minutes* following Occupy's plan to disrupt the caucuses. Continuity of agenda, controlled opposition (Occupy) & using that as pretense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WcysL7VeCw

Grand Theft Iowa?

Writes Brad Funkhouser:

"I've been following Iowa GOP vote counts for a long time ... They are being slow-walked...in 2012. Negotiations are going on... Cash is changing hands. Apparently GOP chieftains are 'persuading,' by one means or the other, Perry and Bachmann people who hold considerable hold sway over large blocs of votes to switch to Romney and Santorum - leaving Ron in the dust... Also abusing suddenly lax ID registration may have created many fake votes for neocons Santorum and Romney. Santorum has no organization, never drew over 100 people during his entire campaign. Of course he did bribe and received the benediction of of that 'family' leader who demanded 1 million dollars that were to be distributed in part to cronies. This is the biggest fraud since Kennedy stole the West Virginia Primary. Perry had built a pretty organization and was around 13% of the vote. He drew far larger crowds than Santorum and ends up with just 10%. Did those votes go. Santorum? Santorum didn't earn 24% of the vote."

Edited January 4, 2012 by Sammich

[preacherman76]

As soon as I saw Ron took 3rd, I knew something dirty was going on. Many polls just the day before had him with a pretty respectable lead. Second place, if not total victory was certain. I cringed when I heard they were moving the counting to a "secret location".

[acidhead]

As soon as I saw Ron took 3rd, I knew something dirty was going on. Many polls just the day before had him with a pretty respectable lead. Second place, if not total victory was certain. I cringed when I heard they were moving the counting to a "secret location".

The good news is Ron Paul received just as many projected Delegates[7] as Romney[7] and Santorum[7] with his 21% of the vote count.

Edited January 4, 2012 by acidhead

[Sammich]

The good news is Ron Paul received just as many projected Delegates[7] as Romney[7] and Santorum[7] with his 21% of the vote count.

That is true and in reality it is a huge success over 2008 where IRC Paul only won one district.

[Corp]

Just wondering but if Paul had won Iowa would everything have been clean and fair? Because this sounds like sour grapes right now. But if there is something fishy then an investigation can be launched and looked into these claims.

[questionmark]

Just wondering but if Paul had won Iowa would everything have been clean and fair? Because this sounds like sour grapes right now. But if there is something fishy then an investigation can be launched and looked into these claims.

Pretty sour, but then again, except for a popularity boost Iowa never was relevant in the overall primaries. c

Can't recall anybody who won there to ever have been nominated.

[preacherman76]

Just wondering but if Paul had won Iowa would everything have been clean and fair? Because this sounds like sour grapes right now. But if there is something fishy then an investigation can be launched and looked into these claims.

To me, as soon as they said they were going to count in a secret location, then at the last minute somehow find it acceptable that people no longer needed a ID to vote, raised serious red flags. Then for Ron to get less votes then Santorum, even though he was practicaly non existant for months in the polls, was the straw that broke the camels back. Sure he was climbing in the polls the last week, but was still no where near Paul. It isnt sour grapes, it obvious deceit.

If Paul would have won, I see no reason to think fraud would be involved. Everyone in the media, the republican party, and elected officials in Iowa, openly stated that a Paul win would be bad for the state. I dont even think he would have definitly won without fraud. But at the least he would have finnished a very strong second.

[preacherman76]

Pretty sour, but then again, except for a popularity boost Iowa never was relevant in the overall primaries. c

Can't recall anybody who won there to ever have been nominated.

Again sour grapes has nothing to do with it. We had the media for weeks now telling us openly that they will do what ever it takes to sabatoge his campaign. We had the govenor of Iowa saying a Ron Paul win would discredit his state. Then at the last minute they change the playing field so they can conduct the count in the dark. And to top it off, suddenly you can vote as many times as you want, cause you dont even need to prove to anyone who you are when casting your vote.

[questionmark]

Again sour grapes has nothing to do with it. We had the media for weeks now telling us openly that they will do what ever it takes to sabatoge his campaign. We had the govenor of Iowa saying a Ron Paul win would discredit his state. Then at the last minute they change the playing field so they can conduct the count in the dark. And to top it off, suddenly you can vote as many times as you want, cause you dont even need to prove to anyone who you are when casting your vote.

I fail to see the importance of this whole thing, if the Reps can't put up something more convincing than Paul, Romney and Santorum it will just end in another lost 4 years. No matter who wins in November.

[preacherman76]

I fail to see the importance of this whole thing, if the Reps can't put up something more convincing than Paul, Romney and Santorum it will just end in another lost 4 years. No matter who wins in November.

Some might see it that way I suppose. Others might say this is Americas last shot to elect a leader that even desires to touch base on our problems before we fall completly off the cliff, and make the great depression look like a good time.

[Corp]

To me, as soon as they said they were going to count in a secret location, then at the last minute somehow find it acceptable that people no longer needed a ID to vote, raised serious red flags. Then for Ron to get less votes then Santorum, even though he was practicaly non existant for months in the polls, was the straw that broke the camels back. Sure he was climbing in the polls the last week, but was still no where near Paul. It isnt sour grapes, it obvious deceit.

If Paul would have won, I see no reason to think fraud would be involved. Everyone in the media, the republican party, and elected officials in Iowa, openly stated that a Paul win would be bad for the state. I dont even think he would have definitly won without fraud. But at the least he would have finnished a very strong second.

So if your guy wins than everything is fine, but if he doesn't then clearly there's a big plot against him. Basically what you're saying is that the only election results that you'll accept as "real" is a Paul victory. That's a rather sad and bleak outlook.

Unless there's an investigation that offers up evidence of fraud this is nothing more than sour grapes. Your guy didn't win top place. It happens all the time. Move on to the next race.

[ShapeAnu]

I was up and had all the Caucus live map updates on my comp till 4:00

Rick Santorum had won the election, Romney 2nd, Paul 3rd.

Heres the thing...

RON PAUL had won Story County, it was declared 100% complete. And then all the sudden it flipped -- Mitt Romney won Story County which bumped him up some votes (it switched back to 100% complete) ... Minutes later Santorum was declared 2nd place, 8 votes short.

Edited January 4, 2012 by ShapeAnu

[preacherman76]

So if your guy wins than everything is fine, but if he doesn't then clearly there's a big plot against him. Basically what you're saying is that the only election results that you'll accept as "real" is a Paul victory. That's a rather sad and bleak outlook.

Unless there's an investigation that offers up evidence of fraud this is nothing more than sour grapes. Your guy didn't win top place. It happens all the time. Move on to the next race.

I guess you could look at it that way. That is if you decided to ignore everything I said and just see what you wanted to.

[+HerNibs]

Who did the counting of the ballots for this caucus? The Party themselves?

Nibs

[Order66]

[+DieChecker]

Iowa radio stream captured with Faux News Republican Strategist Dee Dee Benkie; affirming that the Iowa GOP is planning to manipulate the vote by whatever means necessary in order to prevent a first place win for Ron Paul on January 3rd, 2012. Paul likely to be forced into a 'margin of error' against Flip-Flop Mittens & Rick Fecal Matter for plausible deniability of Election Fraud.

Humm.... Yes, author of article appears completely impartial... Not!

As soon as I saw Ron took 3rd, I knew something dirty was going on. Many polls just the day before had him with a pretty respectable lead. Second place, if not total victory was certain. I cringed when I heard they were moving the counting to a "secret location".

I agree Sour Grapes.

I'm surprised he did as well as he did. The news said he did so well because he got out the Younger Vote, and that he got much of the Independant vote. Everyone voted... Obama ran unopposed for the Democratic ticket. So, I guess the Democrats have no one better then him.

I was interested to see how Ron Paul was dismissed as a contender, though the media is still saying Newt can catch up.

[+DieChecker]

Again sour grapes has nothing to do with it. We had the media for weeks now telling us openly that they will do what ever it takes to sabatoge his campaign. We had the govenor of Iowa saying a Ron Paul win would discredit his state.

I've not heard that. I've heard the media dismissing him as a serious contender, but not hamstringing him.

[Corp]

I guess you could look at it that way. That is if you decided to ignore everything I said and just see what you wanted to.

If Paul would have won, I see no reason to think fraud would be involved. Everyone in the media, the republican party, and elected officials in Iowa, openly stated that a Paul win would be bad for the state. I dont even think he would have definitly won without fraud. But at the least he would have finnished a very strong second.

You clearly said that if Paul had won you wouldn't have thought fraud was involved. He didn't so now you're crying foul. Your guy didn't get the results you wanted. It happens. The other people who were running don't seem to be saying anything about fraud. Hell Ron Paul himself isn't saying fraud was involved. From the looks of it he's rather pleased with the results.

[preacherman76]

You clearly said that if Paul had won you wouldn't have thought fraud was involved. He didn't so now you're crying foul. Your guy didn't get the results you wanted. It happens. The other people who were running don't seem to be saying anything about fraud. Hell Ron Paul himself isn't saying fraud was involved. From the looks of it he's rather pleased with the results.

I said if Paul had won I see no reason it would be fraud. Then I gave a detailed and factual explaination as to why. No one involved would commit fraud for him. Cause no one in that position wanted him to win to begin with.

[preacherman76]

Humm.... Yes, author of article appears completely impartial... Not!

I agree Sour Grapes.

I'm surprised he did as well as he did. The news said he did so well because he got out the Younger Vote, and that he got much of the Independant vote. Everyone voted... Obama ran unopposed for the Democratic ticket. So, I guess the Democrats have no one better then him.

I was interested to see how Ron Paul was dismissed as a contender, though the media is still saying Newt can catch up.

Why?? Have you not seen the polls over the last month??

[F3SS]

Don't worry about it. Anything can still happen for anybody. The bold parts didn't copy over but you'll figure it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

Past winners

Candidates in bold eventually won their party's nomination. Candidates in italics subsequently won the general election.

Democrats

January 3, 2012 - Barack Obama (98%), "Uncommitted" (2%)[18]

January 3, 2008 – Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%), Joe Biden (1%)[19]

January 19, 2004 – John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Dick Gephardt (11%), and Dennis Kucinich (1%)

January 24, 2000 – Al Gore (63%) and Bill Bradley (37%)

February 12, 1996 – Bill Clinton (98%), "Uncommitted" (1%), Ralph Nader (1%)

February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)

February 8, 1988 – Dick Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)

February 20, 1984 – Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%), and Jesse Jackson (2%)

January 21, 1980 – Jimmy Carter (59%) and Ted Kennedy (31%)

January 19, 1976 – "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)

January 24, 1972 – "Uncommitted" (36%), Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)

Republicans

2012 - Mitt Romney (25%), Rick Santorum (25%), Ron Paul (21%), Newt Gingrich (13%), Rick Perry (10%), Michele Bachmann (5%), and Jon Huntsman (1%)[21]

2008 – Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)

2004 – George W. Bush (unopposed)

2000 – George W. Bush (41%), Steve Forbes (31%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)

1996 – Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)

1992 – George H. W. Bush (unopposed)

1988 – Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pete DuPont (7%)

1984 – Ronald Reagan (unopposed)

1980 – George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)

1976 – Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan

[+DieChecker]

Why?? Have you not seen the polls over the last month??

Untrustworthy. Many of those polls were by Public Policy Polling, an entity owned and run by the DNC.

Anyway, those polls fluxuate day to day and are phone polls. Thus, untrustworthy. Everyone I know hangs up on them. To me it seems that only the lonely, dumb, bored, depressed, unemployed, angry or crazed would have been polled.

And... The margins of error on those polls are like 5%.

And... The polls usually involve only like 500 to 600 people.

Thus it is very likely they will often get it wrong.

The actual counting of the votes is what matters and, I am sorry, but Ron Paul came in Third.

[preacherman76]

Oh dont be sorry for me. In reality it was a 3 way tie anyway. Besides no one here has actualy commented on why there is possible voter fraud. In fact everything I and others have said regarding it was 100% completly ignored. I mean seriously, you dont find it in the least bit strange that at the last minute voters no longer were require to provide ID to vote??

[+and-then]

Again sour grapes has nothing to do with it. We had the media for weeks now telling us openly that they will do what ever it takes to sabatoge his campaign. We had the govenor of Iowa saying a Ron Paul win would discredit his state. Then at the last minute they change the playing field so they can conduct the count in the dark. And to top it off, suddenly you can vote as many times as you want, cause you dont even need to prove to anyone who you are when casting your vote.

I think that is common to most of the States. The libs scream to the rafters that requiring a simple photo ID is the equivalent of a poll tax. Even if the State in question will issue the ID for free. Iowa's caucuses have always seemed odd to me but if there's serious evidence of fraud I hope it gets exposed early.

[+and-then]

I heard RP on Fox today saying he'd consider it a positive if he could get his anti-war sentiments, among other issues dear to his supporters, included in the rep platform for the convention. I was encouraged that he still seems loyal to party and at least for now isn't openly planning a 3rd party run. The guy's so idealistic that he really can't win. If he was nominated I think Obarry rolls him like a cheap cigar. If he campaigns for the rep. nominee his base will consider him a sell out...

RP is a good man, only problem is their doesn't seem to be much call for a good man anymore. And THAT is a shame on America at large. JMO