I know the answer to that one...
Since you questioned this, I went ahead and read the blog.
First, the consent decree doesn’t result in what the blog claims. It prevents voter fraud prevention activities that are targeted at minority populations.
It has nothing to do with challenging voter fraud, or preventing voter fraud, on a national basis.
There is nothing in the decree that prevents the GOP from actually dealing with cases of fraud — it is about running fraud detection programs, not going after fraud.
Second, the blog makes use of other blogs as if they are sources of information. This is typical of blogs, they feed on themselves without much concern for facts.
For example, the blog entry claims that Romney was “leading” in 4 states leading up to the election, that he ended up losing. But that is false.
The RCP average for Virginia was Obama +0.3, with only one Romney poll in the last week; the only reason Obama wasn’t further ahead was an outlier +5 romney poll two weeks before the election.
Ohio had Obama +2.9; he only won by +1.9, so Romney actually did BETTER than the polls suggested he would.
Colorado had Obama +1.9. He did much better than that, but again, the blog falsely claims Romney was leading in this state.
Florida did have Romney leading in the RCP average, by 1.5, he lost by 0.9, but that was within the polling margin of error.
So, when a blog claims that Romney was leading in 4 states, but actually Obama was leading in three of those 4 states, it should be a clue that the blog isn’t really dealing with facts.
Other than that, the blog just makes blind claims using numbers as if they are facts. “only 407,000 votes” would get Romney elected, they say, as if that is a small amount. As someone pointed out, Bush would have lost twice if you simply switched a fourth of that number to his opponent.
And the blog cites the “99% obama precincts” as if that shows fraud, when it just shows a historical FACT that these precincts vote almost entirely democrat. In other blogs where they actually cite individual precincts, you can look them up, and see how they did historically.
I did so for one precinct in Richmond Virginia, and found that McCain did no better, and even McDonnell in winning big couldn’t break 10 votes.
I also showed how in 2008, there were dozens of precincts in Ohio where McCain got less than 10 votes. There are entire areas of inner cities that have nothing but people who live off the government and vote the way they are told by their benefactors, which is straight democrat. Richmond didn’t even have a republican running for Congress one year.
The blog also claims that districts had registrations that exceeded their population. That is simply a repetition of a misunderstanding of fact. There was a census in 2010. There were places where registrations exceeded the voting age population found in the 2010 census. But that doesn’t indicate more registrations than actual voters.
For example, in most states students are allowed to register to vote at their colleges, but the census would count those students in their home states. Also, people move, people come of age to vote.
The ludicrous thing is claiming that nobody would notice, and nobody would investigate, if there was an actual precinct where the known adult population was less than the registrations. There is no law or decree that would prevent either party from examining the voter registration roles and determining after the election whether those registrations represented actual people in the district.
And if that isn’t enough to give thoughtful conservatives pause over this blog, I’ll close with this quote from the blog:
” Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.”
Yep, manchurian candidate Barack Obama, who apparently, according to the blog, had a lobotomy: “we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar running from one side of his head, over the crown, to the other side” (maybe the blog writer thinks Obama had his brain transplanted with the preserved cranium of Lenin or something).
For the record, I never said the blot is correct. I hadn’t heard of this case before tonight. My gut tells me the RNC would agree to anything to avoid minority vote suppression lawsuits. But everything you say might be true. I was just annoyed by the fact that the thread and the posts were at cross-purposes.
I know the answer to that one...