Posts Tagged ‘presidential election’
Following the 1960 Presidential Election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon there were widespread allegations of voter fraud, particularly in Illinois and Texas.
Likewise, today there have been widespread allegations of voter fraud in Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland and Miami.
What’s the difference? In 1960, it is actually possible that voter fraud may have made changed the outcome in Illinois and Texas. The raw vote difference in Texas was only 46,000 votes and in Illinois, a mere 9,000 votes.
This year’s election is much different. Obama won Florida by more than 74,000 votes, Ohio by 166,000 votes, Pennsylvania by 310,000 votes and Michigan by 449,000 votes.
Here is the point. There is no way that Obama stole the election. Is it possible to steal 74,000 votes in Florida? I suppose it’s possible – but even if Florida went to Romney, he still would have lost. It is not rational thinking, with the number of people watching the way elections are conducted, that the Democrats could have stolen enough votes to give Obama wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan or even Colorado which Obama won by 138,000 votes.
You just don’t steal landslides.
Yes, I believe that voter fraud exists, and that it could affect outcomes in legislative races and maybe even an occasional Congressional race. But there weren’t any Senate races for states for the President that voter fraud changed the outcome.
Republicans were plenty capable of losing all on their own.
Conn Carroll at Washington Examiner has a very interesting piece based on this study by Gallup. It shows that if the election were held now, and correlated with Obama’s approval/disapproval rating, the Republican candidate would get a whopping 323 Electoral College votes.
Oh, that it were that simple. However, approval ratings this far out from Election Day are far from good indicators of what will happen after the President starts campaigning in earnest and Mitt Romney officially secures the nomination and becomes a punching bag of the left.
The good news – Obama’s folks can’t be very happy about where he stands with the American people – and it’s evident that his State of the Union hasn’t done much to give him a bump in the numbers. Mr. President, they’re just not that into you.
Scott Brown has made it official: He’s not a candidate for President in 2012.
Was anyone really seriously thinking he’d be a viable candidate having only a few years of state legislative experience and only a couple years as a U.S. Senator? Oh… yeah… I forgot about Barack Obama.
Well, I guess it could have been interesting. I’m pretty sure we haven’t seen the last of Scott Brown.