Home
Refresh   Tag(s): ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
June 20, 2009 at 23:34:09

Must Read 2   Well Said 1   Interesting 1   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 6/20/09:

Obama won by MILLIONS MORE than we've been told

submit to twitter
submit to reddit
submit to digg
Tell A Friend

By Mark Crispin Miller (about the author)     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com     Permalink

For OpEdNews: Mark Crispin Miller - Writer

Polls now tell us that Americans claim to have voted for Barack Obama by far larger margins than those indicated on Election Day.

Officially, Obama won the popular vote by 53%, with John McCain and Sarah Palin taking 46%--a lead of seven points. But according to what people told the pollsters at the Wall Street Journal, Obama seems to have prevailed by eleven points: 50%-39%. And the New York Times reports that people claim to have voted for Obama by some 28 points, 60%-32%.

Thus Obama's win was not a mere "decisive victory," as all the press (and he) agreed. It was a landslide, like in 1932, with the Republicans not just refuted but completely routed.



Now, here in what we might call "the real world," such disparities make perfect sense, since they reflect the fact that millions of Americans were variously disenfranchised on Election Day, just as they'd been throughout the decade.

But out in the Bizarro Universe constructed by the US press, those startling polls cannot mean that millions of Americans were disenfranchised by the GOP, since no Americans were disenfranchised (although some few surely were affected, here and there, by "computer glitches").

Not a bit of it! Rather, what those polls suggest, as Slate's Christopher Beam asserts below, is that people are simply lying--a "fact" without a shred of evidence to back it up.

A sample of Beam's logic:

Are people really lying about having voted for Obama?
Yes, they are. It's common for more people to claim they voted for a president than actually did. In the 1930s, George Gallup found that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was more popular in post-election polls than he was on Election Day. The same was true after the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush lost the popular vote. By 2004, polls showed Bush having won in a landslide.

So Gallup said that "more people claimed to [have] vote[d] for" FDR than really did? Or did he simply find that Roosevelt "was more popular in post-election polls than he was on Election Day"?

And then, as further "evidence" that people lie about their votes, Beam argues, weirdly, that "the same was true after the 2000 election," since Bush lost that contest--then "won in a landslide" four years later.

What?

What "landslide"? Even the official outcome had Bush "winning" by 3 million votes. In any case, how do those (alleged) Bush votes serve the argument that "people [are] really lying about voting for Obama"?

Without pausing to explain, Beam then notes that the gap between these new polls and the (seeming) outcome on Election Day is so wide that (what we might call) the Lying Thesis can't account for it entirely. And so Beam spins through a range of further speculations to explain those gross disparities--that is, explain those gross disaprities away.

"The main explanation for the gap, say pollsters, is people who didn't vote at all saying they did." Any evidence to back that up? No way! Beam then claims that people probably just plain forgot which candidate they'd voted for, and notes as well that "people do a poor job of reporting past behaviors." Any evidence of such forgetfulness, or that anyone has "misreported" his or her own votes? None whatever!

Beam then invokes "the group of McCain voters that either regrets their pick or would rather not admit it to a pollster." This is, of course, the old"reluctant responder" hypothesis --which, pre-Election Day, was trotted out to tell us why Obama couldn't win; and now Beam's using it to tell us, tacitly, why Obama didn't really win so big. And is there any evidence for that claim? Of course not!

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Mark's new book, Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008, a (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Book Recommendations for "2004 Election Coverage History"
The Nightly News Nightmare: Television's Coverage of U.S. Presidential Elections, 1988-2004
by Stephen J. Farnsworth

$29.95
Lowest New Price $12.65

Number of pages: 258
Publisher: Rowman

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
11 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
 

Ignorant Speculation as Natural Law by John Sanchez Jr. on Sunday, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:55:51 AM
OMG!! That was AWESOME!!! by steve scheetz on Sunday, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:58:58 AM
Actually, I agree with the author. by John Sanchez Jr. on Sunday, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:21:11 PM
sadly by Rob Kall on Sunday, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:35:31 AM
Well, by Jack Harrington on Sunday, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:23:43 PM
Secret Vote Counting Results in Election Fraud and It's Also by Mark Adams on Sunday, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:41:00 PM
Alas, our memories are not infallible, by mhenriday on Sunday, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:40:07 PM
elections?? I have a website for you all to check out by trail the dogs on Sunday, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:44:14 PM
First you want to... by Joe Reeser on Sunday, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:16:39 PM
Consequences by PrMaine on Tuesday, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:38:03 AM
Count the votes. by Herbert Hoffman on Thursday, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:44:55 AM

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment


 

 

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum