Posted on 11/29/2012 9:02:05 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather
More than 4 million people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 did not vote this year. But by applying new voter science, Obama nudged enough replacements in key states — many who were rare or first-time voters — to give him his margin of victory (leveraged even larger by the Electoral College).
Years of stealthy multimillion-dollar efforts paid off forAmerica’s left in the 2008 and 2012 victories by President Barack Obama. Using new voter science to get rare and first-time voters to go to the polls, the races have changedAmerica’s electorate — those who make the country’s decisions by showing up and voting.
Aided by $5 million minimum from George Soros, plus millions more from others, at least two secretive institutions were created to enable this effort by focused research on behavioral science. Their results are made available only to liberals and their causes.
Those are findings from writer Sasha Issenberg. In an interview with me on my “Istook Live!” radio program, Issenberg put a special spotlight on the Analyst Institute (AI), which he has called “a firm quietly founded in 2007 by AFL-CIO officials and liberal allies.”
The AI has been quietly stacked with behavioral scientists, mostly PhDs or PhD candidates from Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Yale,Princeton, andDartmouth(with Notre Dame andUniversityofChicagothrown in for good measure). They coordinate with market researchers for various commercial products. AI materials brag that the Institute supports “a community of 400 data analysts and related professionals in collaborating and sharing their findings through monthly Analyst Group meetings and retreats.”
Issenberg’s book The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns details more history, as do his articles written for Salon.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...
Except for the fact they committed voter fraud, it was great.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
http://www.nachumlist.com/obamavoter.htm
Except for the fact they committed voter fraud, it was great.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
http://www.nachumlist.com/obamavoter.htm
Here in mid-coast Maine we saw a HUGE increase in election day registration/voting by first timers.
Once the data is available via the state’s office of elections, we plan to look closely.
Could it be we just got out-played ?
I’ve been thinking along these lines as well. There was an article in Atlantic (I saw it linked on Hugh Hewitt’s site) that went into great detail about how the technonerds in the Chicago headquarters did successfully what the disastrous Romney ORCA project was supposed to do.
Yes,there was massive fraud, but that alone is not enough to explain things.
It dovetails with the strange sense I’ve been getting this fall in the classes I teach at the university. Never before have the students been so openly hostile to Christianity, so mind-numbingly ill-informed hoop-jumpers, such non-self-starters. They absolutely refuse to step back, examine an idea, think it through. All they want to know is which hoop to jump through to get an A. Never mind that their A’s are meaningless (I tell them that) or that there will be no jobs even if they do get A’s. They just don’t want to be bothered with learning to be self-starters and to think critically about Stuff. They just want hoops to jump through.
Why is this so much stronger and all of a sudden?
I’m sure there are many reasons, but I’m thinking that since this is the first class, more or less, to enter university never having not known the Internet, that they really are more mind-numbingly hoop-jumpers than the last few years’ classes because they’ve been totally trained, like Pavlov’s dogs, by the internet, Facebook, instant-messaging ephemerality.
It’s a variation on how to do demagoguery and bread and circuses. Obama’s people have glimpsed the import of the Internet for the future and are exploiting it.
The problem is, can a mind-numbing technology be employed by those whose “product” they want to sell is a product that requires real, thoughtful, critical analysis??
It was a combination of voter fraud, being outplayed and a failure of having a ‘pure’ candidate that some conservatives cannot seem to get past of having before they will cast a vote.
If we hadn’t run a rich,65 year old, big government, country club, liberal Republican, we might have won in spite of the fraud.
Having voting screens change a Romeny vote to a Zero vote was also helpful. Bus loads of Chicago Bears fans shipped to Sheboygan WI was great for Der Fuhrer too. We got frauded to death. The turnouts at the rallies don’t lie. Hitler got weak turnout in Madistan,WI even with Springsteen there. Romney got huge crowds everywhere, as did our own Paul Ryan. We got frauded plain and simple. Now that they have the program to shift enough electronic votes for them to win (they did screw up a few by making him win too big), there will never be another election with only plain old fashioned dem fraud, the dead voting, busloads of frauds across state lines. The manipulation of vote machines is their ticket to winning from here on out. Only one thing stops tyranny in it’s tracks. I don’t have to say what that is.
What I wrote yesterday:
If Obama had used Nate Silver’s voting algorithms, he could have used very little in fraud effort. (Nate Silver of the NYTs).
Definitely the fraud would have been very surgical. You cannot be successful in having fraud in every single voting district.
There is no doubt in my mind that there were multiple factors causing an otherwise incomprehensible win for Obama, but take away the fraud, and I do believe the remaining factors would not have carried him to victory.
Fraud, blatant fraud I believe was the major “winning” factor, and apparently little to NOTHING is being done to address the issue by any of our alleged representation.
We received sufficient warning about the voting machines prior to the 2008 election, and much more has been written about those machines, their ownership, their source of programming since, and during this recent election the machines performed as was determined they would in the forewarnings we received.
Illegals voting was noted during the polling, as well poll watchers of one party evicted from their posts as blatant cheating was performed by the other.
The list goes on yet not a damned thing seems to be in the works to address these serious violations.
The election-deniers will insist that all is well, we had a great candidate, and it was all fraud that got Obama elected.
But the truth is that the democrats have approached elections like marketing a product. They found a way to sell things to the mass of people who never vote, and if you can drag 2 million new people to vote, you can win close elections.
They lost existing customers, but were able to market their shiny baubles to new customers who didn’t know any better.
Meanwhile, conservatives and the GOP treated the election like it was an actual election, and the electorate like they were intelligent, involved people who wanted what was best for the country and would understand that Obama wasn’t it.
We lost the election in large part because too many of the voters were nothing like this; they didn’t care about foreign policy, about congress, about running the country. They were people who don’t vote. But these ivy-league marketing pros were able to find different little messages that excited these people to products.
And why not, look at how we can get people to throw away perfectly good phones for the latest craze? And so all those things that we thought were stupid, and childish, like Obamaphone, and free birth control, homosexual marriage, and ObamaSex were all targetted messages, possibly turning off a few independents, but winning a large mass of new voters with each message.
Tell all the little groups what they want to hear, and cobble together a winning coalition.
Heck, you only had to do it twice. Once in 2008, and then after you lost 4 million people who saw you were all talk, get 2 million new replacement suckers.
I saw this first-hand at my daughter’s college. Every time I visited, she was asked to register. They ran events, made it cool to be a voter. They gave support and encouragement, all aimed at doing the “cool thing”, vote for the black guy who supported tolerance and free love, and who wanted people to pay their “fair share”.
While we laughed at OWS, the democrats used it to pull in another million new voters. Sure, they lost 500,000 because of it, but that’s a win.
We need to stop thinking “if you build it, they will come”, and get into the “sell our message and drag people to the polls”.
We can win with conservatism, but we have to make it relevant to the people who don’t vote, so we can turn out the masses. We win in off-year elections and local elections where only the more interested take part, but we need a non-voter strategy if we want to win presidential contests.
Or, we can all stick our heads in the sand, cover our ears, and chant “election fraud”, as if that will make it all better.
They have found a way to leverage technology (social networking primarily) to get out the Stupid Vote.
They can directly target messages to these people convincing them that their personal pet favorite dumb issue will be Obama’s #1 priority.
The GOP has nothing like it. Indeed the same pro-Obama software people who worked on the Dem system probably also worked on ORCA and sabotaged it.
There is a DIRE DIRE NEED for some Conservative Techies out there.
You are asking the right question, the question Republicans don’t want to ask.
You have to figure in fraud, but honestly that may not have the weight it is credited for turning out the vote.
The fact is these Marxists are academics and are comfortable using academic tools. They have certainly won over public education (see tag line) so all the same machinery is there, including the behavioral sciences, to pickbup and apply to shape and nudge enough blocks of voters among the electorate.
Republicans, on the other hand assume the sale before they ever trouble themselves with making the case. We assume voters will vote on principle and affection for the Constitution, and that we just have to tinker around the edges to get out the vote.
Where in America is the founding principles, American history and the Constitution taught? There things have been sucked out by a vacume cleaner for decades and naturally, it’s left a vaccum the Marxists were only too happy to fill, with Marxism.
One day we will discover that the schools was who destroyed Christianity and the churches, in the US.
“...a failure of having a ‘pure’ candidate that some conservatives cannot seem to get past of having before they will cast a vote.”
NO! It was the decision of the GOP Establishment to foist upon conservatives (yet again) a presidential candidate who can “win moderate voters”.
Time and time the GOP Establishment has sandbagged genuine conservatives (see Palin, Angle, O’Donnell, West, and Akin). GOP establishment types, lobbyists, and professional pols would rather have President Obama in the White House than a genuine conservative who would shake things up.
It is way past time for the Republican Party to go the way of the Whigs. It is time for a new party to rise up from the ashes.
The turnouts at rallies DO lie, when you need 62 million votes, and you are getting 20,000 to a rally.
John Kerry had huge crowds at some of his final rallies.
I don’t know why conservatives are ignoring actual voting results and substituting their models, anecdotes, and “adjusted” polling data.
It’s funny because in the global warming discussions, we note how the environmentalists keep ignoring and massaging the data because it doesn’t match their models.
Every report of a machine selecting Obama when they touched Romney (not “changing the vote” as it is popularly called), includes that the people who report it also got their Romney vote to work. You’d think nobody ever had a problem with mis-aligned touch screens before.
Nobody trusts the system anymore. Between conservative talk shows, and MSNBC, both sides are completely and totally convinced that the other side is cheating their way to victory, and that the other side’s candidates are all liars and cheats.
Of course, this is all because government is too valuable a prize, because we gave it too much power.
If government didn’t have the ability to ruin our lives, it wouldn’t be worth the time and effort to fight so hard over elections; also, we might get actual intelligent people to run for office, and they might actually accomplish some good together when they arrived.
I really like your post. While you were posting it, I was typing @#14.
No, it’s your refusal to be flexible that makes it hard for the GOP to win.
The liberals are winning, by incrementally instituting their philosophy and beliefs across the country. The Dems don’t run ‘pure’ candidates. They run whatever they can, becasue they know they don’t need a pure candidate to move the country in incremental amounts. Peeling off flecks of paint, as it were.
Romney, objectively speaking, was a good candidate. Whenever he was caught speaking in secret, those secret conversations were conservatively based. If he had won, he would have done the country a lot of good, not to mention that his failure to win is going to allow Obama to put upwards of 4 Supreme Court justices on the bench.
Remember when anyone who DARED to mention the Soros-funded Shadow Party organization the Socialists were building, was immediately branded a right-wing fruitcake nutjob???
“If we hadn’t run a rich,65 year old, big government, country club, liberal Republican, we might have won in spite of the fraud.”
So, who else was running, THAT HAD A CHANCE AT WINNING???
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.