There is plenty of evidence of various types of fraud and cheating that seemed to have been carefully targeted to 'Rat infested cities and counties in swing states. (see http://nachumlist.com/obamafraud.htm) It certainly seems strange that reputable pollsters had Romney with a slim lead nationally in the popular vote, and slightly ahead or even in all the battleground states on the day before the election. So how do you explain the discrepency between these final poll results and the alleged results of the election? Why did these pollsters fail to measure accurately what supposedly occurred in the election? There may have been some other factors that played a role, but the most logical explanation is 'rat fraud and cheating. Simply put, the polls are designed to forecast the outcome based on a model which assigns one and only one vote to each eligible and likely voter. No pollster can handle and forecast alteration in the numbers induced by the fraud and cheating!
Why were the professionals managing Romney's campaign "shellshocked" on election night? Because their internal pollsters, assuming a fair election, had pretty much assured them that they were likely to win. In other words, they were blindsided in such a way that 'Rat fraud and cheating would be by far the most logical way to account for the discrepencies! (Yes, the Romney people lacked the guts to say out loud that such was the case, but read between the lines.)
That would be strange, except that Obama was ahead in polling all the battleground states he won, except for Florida.
The national lead is a hard thing to measure exactly; the best polls still had a margin of error that was greater than the actual election results -- in other words, the election outcome fell well within the polling margin.
I'm familiar with the various lists; most of the items in them are general comments not verifiable, or anecdotal stories with no physical evidence. There are some specific claims. Those claims turn out to be false, or misunderstanding of the facts.
For example, the list says the Allen West district had a vote of 141% of the registered voters -- that was false, someone misread an election report and thought the count of ballots was the count of voters. The report clearly stated a turnout of 71%, and ballots of 141% because there were two ballots per voter.
Another example; it claims there was a county in Ohio where Obama got 108% of the registered votes. That would be a clear sign of fraud. But it was entirely false. First, the "108%" number was the number of REGISTERED voters compared to the number of eligible citizens based on the census. That's because Ohio is lousy at clearing the registration rolls. The county included a college, and college students register, and then don't unregister when they graduate.
Second, the actual VOTE was 57% of the total registered vote. That number is below Ohio average, by about 8% -- precisely what you'd expect if the registration was inflated by 8%. So there were NO MORE VOTES than you would expect.
THIRD, Obama didn't get 108%, or even 57% -- he only got half the total vote, or about 28%.
Another claim was that a precinct in Richmond gave Obama all but one vote, and that was somehow "unprecedented". But a search of the voting records for that precinct (easy to do here in virginia) shows that this precinct always votes almost exclusively democrat. McCain got 3 votes. McDonnell in his crushing victory in 2012 got 6 votes.
Another claim was that multiple precincts in Ohio went almost exclusively for Obama. True, but again, misleading -- an almost identical number of precincts went overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. Maybe they did the same fraud both elections.
But that points out another problem -- that complaint is just inference. We can't "fathom" that there would be a place in the middle of a decaying city where the only people living there would vote democrat. Frankly, I'm surprised republicans get as many votes as they do in those public housing units and slums. But by all means we should do some investigating, ask people to anonymously come forward if they voted for Romney.
But seriously -- we have yet to see a signed affidavit from ANY of those "59 philadelphia precincts that went 100% for Obama" by ANY republican who voted for Romney. What is more likely -- that there actually are 59 places in Philly where nobody votes republican, or that there are at least 59 people brave enough to vote republican, but then too scared to identify themselves in order to prove fraud?
Then there is the complete anecdotal stories of "busloads of voters" coming from Illinois to register and vote in Wisconsin. Well, Wisconsin is controlled by republicans. So if nothing else, they certainly could check the addresses given.
But worse -- Obama won by 200,000 votes. So to actually change the outcome of the election this way, the democrats had to drive 7000 buses full of people, and have them all register and vote fraudulently. Do I believe that there were some people who did this? Sure -- I don't have proof, but why wouldn't someone do it? But 200,000? or 20,000? No evidence exists for this level of cheating.
There's the claims that voting machines "changed votes". But every report of that is that the machines "SHOWED" a different selection. And every report says the voters saw it, and got their votes correct. I'm not a fan of the electronic machines, but they tell you multiple times who you voted for, so errors are caught. The machines get out of alignment -- there's a youtube showing a machine giving Romney the Obama selection. No evidence exists that any machines were deliberately miscalibrated, or that any significant number of vote mis-registration was MISSED by the voters.
THere is one particulary "specific" anecdote, told by a supposed poll worker, who claimed he WATCHED the machines change people's votes. Later though he mentions that he was monitoring the voter address checks, and thought he saw voter check-offs disappear (which would ALLOW another person to claim the same name/address -- although he didn't say he saw THAT). Two problems with his story -- first, there is no place where a poll worker is ALLOWED to actually watch people cast votes, and second, if he was assigned to watch the check-in process, he wouldn't have had hours watching the voters vote.
There was the Maine GOP guy who claimed a bunch of blacks showed up to register and vote in a nearly all-white community. He had to withdraw his claim and apologize.
There was another "observation" of Somalians voting en masse. But no pictures, and no indication how they knew the people were Somali, or how they "knew" they weren't naturalized citizens who were legally voting. There are millions of naturalized citizens that still look foreign.
The problem is first, it's a lot more fun to scream "fraud", and second, it's a lot easier to string together two dozen unsourced, unverifiable accusations and make it sound like there is SO MUCH EVIDENCE that it must be true; it is very HARD to get people to give specifics, and then to research every specific. For example, it took me an hour to do the analysis of the Richmond precinct -- it only too 10 seconds for someone to scan the 2012 vote and see the precinct.
I'll say to you what I say to everybody. If you have a specific claim of fraud, please post it here, and I'll be glad to investigate it and tell you what I think. SO far, nobody who claims massive fraud has been willing to give me any such specific claims to checkout.
Last thing -- when did republicans suddenly start taking polling as gospel? I remember when we mocked the democrats for claiming Republicans must have stolen the election, because Kerry was winning the exit polls.