Barack Obama
The Internet is screaming with headlines of how Obama “stole the 2008 election” through voter fraud. The source are some leaked strategy memos from the McCain campaign. However, the headlines are far from justified when reading more in depth. The main salient allegation here is this:

1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to “out”. 

Given that the best evidence here is a three and a half year old unsupported email, a couple of questions become apparent. First of all what proof is there of them being caught?
Secondly, Obama won Ohio by 262, 000 votes, he won Pennsylvania by 620,000 votes.Did these black Democrats stuff 882,000 ballots? If not, Obama would have still won both states. If so, Obama would have still won the electoral college by a solid margin.
Anyone who stuffed ballot boxes should be prosecuted criminally, but its easy to see why the McCain campaign or State parties never made a big deal over this. If there were 20,000 or 30,000 ballots stuffed in a couple states, they still lost. Making a big public complaint about this as a sort of bloody shirt would only make Republicans look petty and like sore losers.
Though to hear people talk, no one’s lost an election since 2000. Florida 2000, of course, was stolen by the Bushes, 2004 was stolen by Diebold, 2008 was now stolen by ballot-stuffing Blacks, and the only reason Ron Paul hasn’t won every single primary and Caucus in 2012 is massive voter fraud.
Allegations of voter fraud and manipulation are understandable, particularly in the face of a result like a presidential election coming to 537 votes in a large state. However, when people complain that a clear election like Obama’s 08 victory or Bush’s 04 victory was stolen on scant evidence, it undermines the whole basis for our representative government.If 600,000 ballots were secretly stuffed in Ohio and Pennsylvania, then it makes it a worthless action to even bother with voting and when people start to think the system is rigged with probably millions of ballots being stuffed, you’ve created a dangerous situation.
On the other hand, the cry of “stolen election” quickly becomes like the boy calling wolf. If we were wise, all sides of the political arguments would refrain from claiming voter fraud unless there was real evidence something occurred that affected the election outcome.
4 comments
  1. I can understand where you’re coming from. However, you didn’t even address the issue of electronic voting machines. I would post the link to a YouTube video of this guy who developed the software to flip the vote in an election in Florida, but I will let you look it up for yourself. He’s testifying before congress in the video. We need to go back to paper ballots, and public counting.

    1. I agree about going back to paper.  And the latest is that George Soros supposedly owns the company that will count the votes of our November  election in Spain.  I’ve read that several times in the past few weeks.  Don’t know if it’s a fact, but I’m not discounting it either.  Electronic voting makes committing fraud a lot easier IMO.

    2.  Our problem with electronic voting machines is not that they have been hacked but that they CAN be hacked. In reality most cases of ballot stuffing and voter registration fraud involve paper ballots. It’s similar to how people get very scared about doing things online while most identity theft occurs offline.

      1. But electronic voting is rather new, so maybe that’s why we haven’t heard as much about fraud in that regard.  This kind of fraud would be easier to conceal too, and could be far more damaging. It wouldn’t take as many corrupt individuals to cause major havoc. It’s not just about corruption, though–it’s also about bugs, glitches, etc.  I found this statement elsewhere on the Web:

        While paper ballots, punch cards and lever machines have their problems, a worry among some computer scientists is that the risks presented by touch-screen systems are more insidious because they are harder to detect. Critics of so-called direct recording electronic, or DRE, voting machines, most of which employ touch screens, are particularly concerned about the lack of a paper trail. Although the most widely used DRE machines can at day’s end print out at a record of ballots cast, detractors say this is insufficient. Because of the potential for memory glitches or even possible tampering, critics such as Neumann advocate printing a paper record that voters can examine
        immediately after casting their votes.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Iowa and New Hampshire’s Role in the Nominating Process

Shane Vander Hart: The role of the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary isn’t to nominate a candidate in so much as it is to winnow the field.

Republicans Offer Strong Reaction to Obama’s Iran Deal

Several Republican 2016 contenders offered strong reaction to President Barack Obama’s announcement of a deal reached with Iran over their nuclear program.

Huckabee Comes Out Best in Immigration Debate

Adam Graham: The message from Huckabee on immigration is clear: If he’s elected, the hostage crisis will be over, the border will be secured.

Donald Trump Says He’ll Appoint Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump says he’ll appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices. Shane Vander Hart asks why should we believe him?