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

Skip to comments.

Registered Voters Became Likely Voters

Posted on 11/07/2012 5:30:33 AM PST by Andrei Bulba

Eventually the boring little things everyone takes for granted, become the great big things that bite you hard. For many decades the majority of our fellow citizens were far more liberal and democratic than the electorate which actually voted.

We constantly say, oh that's a poll of "registered voters" it doesn't count. Or even worse, we say are you kidding? It's a poll of ADULTS not even people registered to vote. Then we discuss how those people are too lazy to vote and they don't count.

Well reality is a tough thing. They did count because they could vote. America has long been a country where if everyone voted we'd have a liberal disaster on our hands. As democrats engineered the demographics of NY, Cal., and many other big states we said, boy it's a good thing the whole country isn't like those places, we'd be cooked.

Well last night the chickens came home to roost. They came home to vote. We're talking about the America that lives in New York City and New Jersey, watched their fellow citizens murdered on the real September 11 - and if they had been the likely voters, there never would have been a War On Terror, or lots of other policies the rest of us took for granted.

Republicans ignore those non voters because they won't vote for Republicans anyway. Republicans use those folks to scare the rest of us so we'll elect Republicans in more conservative areas. Democrats usually ignore them because they always vote democrat no matter what.

Barack Obama offered the perfect storm, a black liberal democrat who could turn registered voters into actual voters. And the disaster came. The turnout models in the polls were correct because he turned them out. Blacks, 18 year old kids, hispanics, single mothers, people from school districts so bad they aren't really schools, they are just places for the formerly non voting class to hang out or sell drugs.

These voters don't give a damn how many ships the navy has, or whether Egypt goes radical, heck many are muslims. They WANT Obamacare and things like the deficit are meaningless to them. Harsh words here on a conservative site, but in their world it's just fine.

Granted most polls show a slight majority don't want Obamacare, etc. But guess what? This time WE became the "registered voters". The actual voters were the 99% black population who turned out for Obama, the unwed mothers who want a handout, and so on. All the Americans who were there but didn't count because they didn't bother, well now they bothered.

What do you do when most of your fellow citizens want an America you believe is a horrible misguided mistake? Well it's not easy. All the talk about how blacks, hispanics, etc, have more in common with us doesn't cut it. How many conservative republicans are prepared to actually get those votes rather than pay lip service? Can you even get those without becoming liberal?

This is the hard part. Can we really reverse the demographics on immigration? Seems damn unlikely. Do we just sit it out till Obama isn't on the ballot? You think democrats can't figure this out and keep doing it?

It's not easy but we took these registered voters for granted- just like the democrats did-forever. A healthy solution for America has to include them. Either they become more conservative or we can hang it up. And that has to mean more than conservatives just saying that those people don't realize our policies are better for them.

America can't afford to keep losing California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the young vote, the female vote- because they have become The Vote. And they just reelected a truly lousy president because to them he's just fine. They are now the likely voters.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: vanity; whyithappened

1 posted on 11/07/2012 5:30:41 AM PST by Andrei Bulba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

People are not too lazy to vote, WHEN THEIR FOOD STAMPS ARE ON THE LINE.


2 posted on 11/07/2012 5:36:06 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Barack Obama got 3 million fewer votes yesterday than George W. Bush got in 2004 -- and there are a lot more voters out there today than there were in 2004. Heck, Obama's 2012 vote total was almost identical to John Kerry's losing vote total in 2004.

Obama won because a lot of conservatives simply stayed home, and because he was able to get enough votes from politically-disinterested, gainfully employed voters in places like Florida and Virginia to supplement his natural base of misfits and losers.

It's really that simple, folks.

3 posted on 11/07/2012 5:37:15 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Hmm, the fact that Obama got 3mil less votes than GW Bush in ‘04 is a good counterpoint to the demographics hypothesis I’d settled on.


4 posted on 11/07/2012 5:44:03 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

When the dust settles and people start looking at this objectively, I believe they’re going to look at some of these minor facts and determine that Romney lost this election simply because he couldn’t speak Spanish on the campaign trail the way Bush did.


5 posted on 11/07/2012 5:47:11 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

Disagree with this article. Right centered people did not turn-out. Romney will have less votes that McCain did in 2008- and BTW, Obama’s vote count may end up being lower that McCain’s 2008 vote.


6 posted on 11/07/2012 5:49:29 AM PST by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

Do you have any numbers to support that conjecture?


7 posted on 11/07/2012 5:51:30 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
America can't afford to keep losing California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the young vote, the female vote- because they have become The Vote. And they just reelected a truly lousy president because to them he's just fine. They are now the likely voters.

I've said in the past that we needed to attempt to convert these people but many consider them irrelevant. But that was then.

Now, I think that events will have to manage our future rather than the other way around.
The laws of economics will not be ignored. We are spending ourselves into bankruptcy via the European model and taxing the "rich" will only work for a short time.
There are other forces at work in this world that see a wealthy country in decline and they are already carving out their portions.
I had thought that we could bounce back with such a clear choice in this election.

8 posted on 11/07/2012 5:51:38 AM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Obama won because a lot of conservatives simply stayed home, and because he was able to get enough votes from politically-disinterested, gainfully employed voters in places like Florida and Virginia to supplement his natural base of misfits and losers.

No, it is not a matter of conservatives staying home. In the case of VA, it has to do with a rapidly changing electorate fueled by immigration and a migration of liberals into NoVA to be around the honeypot called the federal government.

Here in Fairfax County, VA the foreign born make up 30% of the residents. They vote Dem two to one. And their numbers are growing. VA will be a blue state in less than 10 years.

Non-Hispanic whites, many of them conservative, are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the electorate. Many are dying as the Greatest Generation ebbs away. Demography is destiny. The current demograhpic profile of CA today will be what the US looks like in 2050. It has electoral consequences.

The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.

Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 310 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by an additional 130 million to 440 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration.

Obama has already created a backdoor amnesty that will result in 1.8 million illegal aliens having their status legalized and issued work permits. In his second term he will push for a blanket amnesty that will legalize 12 million more and allow them to sponsor tens of millions more of their relatives.

We don't have the same electorate anymore. Obama has proven you don't need to rely on non-Hispanic whites to win. We had a tipping point yesterday that will make the Dems the permanent majority party. Hillary will be elected in 2016, a beneficiary of the changed electorate.

9 posted on 11/07/2012 5:55:39 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Obama won because a lot of conservatives simply stayed home,

I was expecting the Christians to come out strong to defend against ObamaCare. They didn't. In the next four years Obama will nominate more judges that will further limit freedom of religion.

10 posted on 11/07/2012 5:58:09 AM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

eventually we will lose Texas, then it will be really over.


11 posted on 11/07/2012 6:03:57 AM PST by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Obama won because a lot of conservatives simply stayed home,

I was expecting the Christians to come out strong to defend against ObamaCare. They didn't. In the next four years Obama will nominate more judges that will further limit freedom of religion.

12 posted on 11/07/2012 6:05:03 AM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty
Here is the Numbers in 2008

John McCain   	                59,948,323	45.65%

So far in 2012
Barack Obama                    59,599,024      50.3%

Mitt Romney                     56,974,934      48.1%

California is almost done reporting- all the more populated counties are in...

13 posted on 11/07/2012 6:10:56 AM PST by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

I think early voting sucks.

The Dems have all that time to bus in the Obama Phone users to get them to the polls. They hit up the homeless shelters, etc.


14 posted on 11/07/2012 6:13:46 AM PST by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

And Nate Silver got it right, too, something a lot of Freepers are going to have a hard time admitting.


15 posted on 11/07/2012 6:24:31 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
he was able to get enough votes from politically-disinterested, gainfully employed voters

I agree, and there are two things which helped make that happen.

(1) - Bernanke's relentless pump priming has significantly softened the effect of Obama's economy killing policies. The GOP has for all practical purposes been silent on this issue. Except for Ron Paul.

(2)Mitt Romney, his personal integrity notwithstanding, is a man of the paper-trading, deal-cutting economy rather than the build things, deliver goods economy. And working class voters who (rightly IMO) saw Wall Street as a major culprit in the last decade's fiscal follies were in no mood to let a Wall Streeter run the company. The Street is no friend, and no ally, to limited-government conservatives.

16 posted on 11/07/2012 6:27:25 AM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

That is…bizarre.

wtf?


17 posted on 11/07/2012 6:28:27 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
And Nate Silver got it right, too, something a lot of Freepers are going to have a hard time admitting.

In the same way that Joe Namath got it right on Super Bowl III, yes he did.


18 posted on 11/07/2012 6:31:01 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Yep. Axelrod figured out how to turn that spigot on, along with others over the years who pushed early voting, lack of ID etc etc. They got the unlikely voter to come out.

BUT there is a corollary to that, those voters still did not show up in the OFF year election of 2010.

Looks like the big move in 2010 was more about these unlikely voters not engaging unless it is a big time election.

So that leaves some questions.

1) Are we now in a trend where the Right will win 2014 big, because that new Dem base from the Demographic Wave won’t turn out, but they WILL turn out again in 2016..causing a kind of lurching electoral wobble walk.

2) Can the Dems find this combination again in 2016 with a new person? Will this new voter turn out for ANYONE on the Dem Presidential ticket now? Or only youth? Only racially?
Some combination?

3) What will the GOP fiddle around and do to counter? Move further left? Push Rubio and go hard for latinos? Both?

4) We may be seeing a flip of the old saw where the Democrats had a lot of the states, the House etc, and the GOP had the Presidency in a box for a time. While one shouldn’t be satisfied with that, a lot can be changed BOTTOM up. Of course, if the GOP drifts left that won’t matter...but the key for tea party types is to think smaller and do what the dems did. Go for the school boards, cities, etc and work UP. Those elections don’t have this kind of turnout.


19 posted on 11/07/2012 6:36:12 AM PST by Crimson Elephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Exhibit A: Mr. Buckeye McFrog


20 posted on 11/07/2012 6:48:55 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Let's also remember that the 47% are the 47% because Ronald Reagan and George Bush enacted tax policies that dropped many of them of the tax rolls.

Not everything is the other side's fault.

21 posted on 11/07/2012 6:56:17 AM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

We both are right, but the electorate that voted was the Obama electorate. That means THEY were the likely voters.

And any “conservative” that stayed home on this one is at least as stupid as the Obama voters. So if we can’t call them likely voters against Obama they may as well vanish. In fact, they did.


22 posted on 11/07/2012 10:51:33 AM PST by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crimson Elephant

Won’t be a new person, will be Hilary.


23 posted on 11/07/2012 10:53:24 AM PST by Andrei Bulba (No Obama, no way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kabar
All good points, but I don't see why that would automatically have negative consequences for Republican candidates. Immigrants -- especially legal ones -- tend to be among the most upwardly mobile demographic groups in the U.S. You are assuming that the immigrant who moved here in 2005 is an automatic Democratic voter. More importantly, you're assuming that his children will be Democrats, too.

The latter point is critical, because this is where the Republicans can make some serious inroads among immigrants. Once these immigrants become "mainstream taxpayers," they are no longer reliable residents of the Democratic plantation. The Republican Party must figure out how to appeal to them.

I'll take it one step further, too. One of the most dramatic shifts in American politics over the next few decades -- and it has already started -- will be the natural resentment that will build between recent immigrants and our nation's class of professional malcontents (the "47%") who will never get off the Democratic plantation. The GOP must figure out a way to build on this.

24 posted on 11/07/2012 3:48:06 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

Christians who view the issue objectively were understandably reluctant to hitch their wagon to Mitt Romney, for Obamacare does nothing on the national level in terms of threatening religious liberty than Romneycare didn’t do in Massuchusetts.


25 posted on 11/07/2012 3:50:54 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba

Voting has gotten easier. Early voting, absentee voting, in NJ even email voting. Make voting easy enough, and it’s easy to get lazy registered voters into likely voters.


26 posted on 11/07/2012 3:52:30 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (political correctness is communist thought control, disguised as good manners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

Good points. The irony is that Obama is more of a “Wall Street Insider” than anyone will ever want to admit.


27 posted on 11/07/2012 3:54:09 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Well now we are permanently hitched to ObamaCare. It will never be repealed.


28 posted on 11/07/2012 4:00:35 PM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Yes, and again only Ron Paul made that point. The rest of the GOP was dead silent.


29 posted on 11/07/2012 4:09:20 PM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
I hate to break this to you, but it was never going to be repealed even if Romney won, the GOP maintained control of the House, and the GOP got a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Despite all the political posturing that went on in 2010, Obamacare is one of those national initiatives that is strongly supported by both major parties. In the short term, the primary purpose of the law is to be a boon for insurance companies as they underwrite a flood of new policies. In the long term, the purpose is to eradicate the private insurance industry (after it has already generated huge profits from premiums paid by/for younger people who will file very few claims) and remove a major cost item from the ledger of every major U.S. corporation.

30 posted on 11/07/2012 4:09:29 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Exactly right! The business community will be delighted to get the costs of health care off its income statements.
31 posted on 11/07/2012 4:11:07 PM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

Just think about it. Young adults are now compelled to buy medical insurance — either directly or through an employer-sponsored plan. With few exceptions, these people generally use far less medical care than their premiums cost anyway (their premiums are inflated because insurance companies use them to support the higher claims of older policy holders). By the time these younger people are old enough that they regularly have major medical expenses, whatever “medical insurance” is left will cover little more than a medicine man dancing around a hospital bed with rattles and feathers.


32 posted on 11/07/2012 4:16:53 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
By 2035 or so, we will still have a program called "Medicare", but it will consist of outpatient clinics and hospices.

Of course, something like this would have happened under the GOP just as well, but the "death panels" would be run by Aetna and Humana instead of CMS. The demographics are that relentless.

Your posts show a great grasp of the realities, AC. I would -strongly- recommend Dr. Richard Fogoros' site, http://covertrationingblog.com/ - he really gets it rigut.

33 posted on 11/07/2012 4:39:07 PM PST by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
That may or may not be, but I tell you about one group that you are overlooking, doctors.

Most doctors do not accept new medicare patients. One doctor I am familiar with who does internal medicine and takes mostly medicare patients told his staff that he wants to increase his patient load from 15/day to 30/day. He expects that Obamacare will be about the same.

34 posted on 11/07/2012 4:41:26 PM PST by oldbrowser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Andrei Bulba
Do we just sit it out till Obama isn't on the ballot?

Worked in 2010.

35 posted on 11/07/2012 4:51:18 PM PST by JediJones (Vote NO on Proposition Zero! Tuesday, November 6th!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
All good points, but I don't see why that would automatically have negative consequences for Republican candidates. Immigrants -- especially legal ones -- tend to be among the most upwardly mobile demographic groups in the U.S. You are assuming that the immigrant who moved here in 2005 is an automatic Democratic voter. More importantly, you're assuming that his children will be Democrats, too.

It is an assumption based on fact. Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects

"This Backgrounder examines the political implications of large-scale immigration. Between 1980 and 2008, 25.2 million people were granted permanent residency (green cards) by the United States. A comparison of voting patterns in presidential elections across counties over the last three decades shows that large-scale immigration has caused a steady drop in presidential Republican vote shares throughout the country. Once politically marginal counties are now safely Democratic due to the propensity of immigrants, especially Latinos, to identify and vote Democratic. The partisan impact of immigration is relatively uniform throughout the country, even though local Republican parties have taken different positions on illegal immigration. Although high immigration may work against Democratic policy goals, such as raising wages for the poor and protecting the environment, it does improve Democratic electoral prospects. In contrast, immigration may help Republican business interests hold down wages, but it also undermines the party’s political fortunes. Future levels of immigration are likely to be a key determinant of Republicans’ political prospects moving forward.

The latter point is critical, because this is where the Republicans can make some serious inroads among immigrants. Once these immigrants become "mainstream taxpayers," they are no longer reliable residents of the Democratic plantation. The Republican Party must figure out how to appeal to them.

You seem to believe that today's immigrants are becoming "mainstream taxpayers," which is patently false. They are mostly unskilled, low paid, and uneducated and are taking more from the system than they are contributing. 57% of immigrant headed households with children are on welfare. 25% of the adults lack even a high school degree. Every year we are bringing in thru our legal immigration policies hundreds of thousands of high school dropouts.

Poverty

• In 2010, 23 percent of immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) lived in poverty, compared to 13.5 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their children accounted for one-fourth of all persons in poverty.

• The children of immigrants account for one-third of all children in poverty.

• Among the top sending countries, poverty is highest for immigrants and their young children from Mexico (35 percent), Honduras (34 percent), and Guatemala (31 percent); and lowest for those from Germany (7 percent), India (6 percent), and the Philippines (6 percent).

Educational Attainment

• Of adult immigrants (25 to 65), 28 percent have not completed high school, compared to 7 percent of natives.

• The share of immigrants (25 to 65) with at least a bachelor’s degree is somewhat lower than that of natives — 29 vs. 33 percent.

• The large share of immigrants with relatively little education is one of the primary reasons for their lower socioeconomic status, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.

• At the same time immigration added significantly to the number of less-educated workers, the share of young, less-educated natives holding a job declined significantly. The decline began well before the current economic downturn.

Progress Over Time

• Many immigrants make significant progress the longer they live in the country. However, on average even immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years have not come close to closing the gap with natives.

• The poverty rate of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years is 50 percent higher than that of adult natives.

• The share of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years who lack health insurance is twice that of adult natives.

• The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years using one or more welfare programs is nearly twice that of native-headed households.

• The share of households headed by an immigrant who has lived in the United States for 20 years that are owner occupied is 22 percent lower than that of native households.

And most of the 40 million immigrants living in the US today (now one in 8 residents of this country compared to one in 21 in 1970) not counting their American born children favor Dems by two to one.

I'll take it one step further, too. One of the most dramatic shifts in American politics over the next few decades -- and it has already started -- will be the natural resentment that will build between recent immigrants and our nation's class of professional malcontents (the "47%") who will never get off the Democratic plantation. The GOP must figure out a way to build on this.

Most of the immigrants coming to this country are natural Democrats as they have been historically. In the past immigrants had higher levels of education compared to the native born and that goes back to the early 1900s. Today, that is not true. And we now have the welfare state. Households headed by a high school dropout receive three dollars in public benefits for every dollar paid in taxes and it doesn't matter if they are immigrants or the native born.

Milton Friedman said that, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2042, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

Since the 1965 Immigration Act, our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled major demographic changes in a very short period of time. In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2042, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provides a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power.

We have now reached a tipping point that has allowed a failed President to be reelected. Immigrants have provided the margin of victory.

36 posted on 11/07/2012 5:04:00 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: el8ed2012; Lazamataz; Darksheare
TROLL ALERT!

Here Kitty, Kitty!


38 posted on 11/08/2012 9:53:20 AM PST by WVKayaker ("Mitt Romney couldn't keep up with lies and spin of Barack Obama" - Sarah Palin 10/24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: el8ed2012

I hope you enjoy your new Amerika, ya big DUmmy!


39 posted on 11/08/2012 9:59:38 AM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: el8ed2012

el8ed2012
Since Nov 8, 2012

You’re new here, AND trolling.
Interesting.


40 posted on 11/08/2012 10:01:54 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; TheOldLady

Troll inside the wire alert


41 posted on 11/08/2012 10:04:01 AM PST by Covenantor ("Men are ruled...by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: el8ed2012

Why don’t you post this truly original work as a magnum opus thread?
Your life’s work writ large if you will.


42 posted on 11/08/2012 10:05:44 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: el8ed2012

Hey , DUnce, smell my finger!


43 posted on 11/08/2012 10:06:15 AM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: el8ed2012

What’s the matter, caught a case of post amnesia?
Don’t remember how to post replies?


44 posted on 11/08/2012 10:08:08 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Ya gotta explain what was going on in NC...as per Breitbart..

Listening to descriptions of how “Democrats got out their ground game” with “superior ability to bring those to the polls who normally would never go” by the commentators on Fox election night..made me realize..what they actually have done is track names that HAVE NOT VOTED IN MANY, MANY elections cycles....and vote them.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/23/No-Car-Finds-2-214-Registered-Voters-110-Years-of-Age-Older

A well-funded project, county-by-county..to examine the names signed in at at the polls..and going out to find those individuals..you’ll find they were never physically at he polls..or they themselves never filled out the absentee ballot....or their names in the death registers.


45 posted on 11/08/2012 10:18:05 AM PST by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mo

I’d like to find out if my stepdaughter has been voting.
Which would be some trick considering she passed away in 2000.


46 posted on 11/08/2012 10:20:09 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | 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