Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Jonathan Simon: Did Scott Walker really win his recall vote?

NYU professor, author and election fraud activist, Mark Crispin Miller, distributed the commentary below by Jonathan Simon on the Wisconsin/Scott Walker recall vote. The main points are that the exit polls are as fishy as the actual vote count which is managed in secret by Republican leaning vote counting companies. Author Jonathan Simon doesn't mention it, but the  paper ballots accompanying the voting machines are rendered meaningless when the winning margin isn't close. No problem if your side is doing the "counting."
My guess is that this election was stolen just as were the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections to name just two.

Jonathan Simon

With the exit polls—as usual—”adjusted,” Walker “wins” Wisconsin! (Who’s surprised?)

From Jonathan Simon:
What we got tonight in Wisconsin was the same old stench, coming from the same old corner of the room. To wit, there was a huge turnout (highly favorable to the Democratic candidate Barrett), in fact they’re still waiting in line to vote in Milwaukee and elsewhere nearly two hours after poll closing; and the immediate post-closing Exit Polls had it a dead heat, 50%-50%. But the only place those polls were posted was as
 a Bar Chart in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Not a single network posted any Exit Poll numbers, though they all have been regularly posting them throughout the 2012 primary season within a few minutes of poll closing. But they all called the race “extremely tight,” since they were looking at the same 50%-50% Exit Poll that the Journal Sentinel at least had the courage to post in some format.
In short order, and quite predictably, the race was Walker’s, the networks anointing him the winner as the Exit Poll “Adjustment” Process played out. You could actually see it on the Journal Sentinel’s Bar Chart: the blue bars shrinking and the red bars lengthening every 20
 minutes or so. It will take a bit of visual measuring but the adjustment process was egregious, on the order of an 8-10% marginal disparity between the Unadjusted Exit Polls and the Adjusted Exit Polls congruent to the eventually-to-be-announced “official results.”
We’ve seen this before, election after election, the familiar “Red Shift.” And it’s the Exit Polls that are always “off,” because the Votecounts must always be “on.” Except that the Votecounts are secret and in the full control of outfits, with strong right-wing affiliations, like Dominion Voting and Command Central. Votes counted by partisans in complete secret–is this sane?
Today massive robocalls were reported to have been placed to targeted Barrett supporters, telling them they didn’t have to vote if they had signed the recall petition, and others that they couldn’t vote if they hadn’t voted in 2010. An obvious question: is there a bright ethical line between making (whoever actually made them) targeted robocalls telling your opponents’ supporters they don’t have to vote if they signed
 the recall petition versus setting the zero-counters on a bunch of memory cards to, say, +50 (for Walker) and -50 (for Barrett) so at the end
 of the day the election admin sees a “clean” election and you’ve shifted 100 votes per precinct? Do you believe that operators who have clearly not blanched at doing the first would for some reason blanch at doing the second–much neater and more efficacious as it is?
And if you’re thinking “well the pre-election polls predicted a Walker win,” you should know that the methodology for all of those polls, even
 the ones run by left-leaning outfits, was the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (google it, by all means), which disproportionately eliminates Democratic voters (students, renters, poor, minority) from the sample and so skews it conveniently anywhere from 5% to 10% to the right (the pollsters
 all would have been out of business by now if they had kept using a sound methodology and getting competitive elections wrong with it).
This election was dubbed “the second most important election of 2012;” it will “foretell” November just as the Massachusetts Special Senate Election (Coakley-Brown) “foretold” November 2010. And there was a massive red shift and even more than the usual indicators that it was rigged. Can anyone live with that, just give it a pass, and sleep tonight?
–Jonathan Simon


Ronald said...

Jeffrey B. responded:


I doubt that it was stolen. Barrett was not a strong candidate and had lost to Walker for the governor's race and with Walker outspending him 8 to 1, and the American people being as stupid as Mencken said they were, if not stupider, it was not hard to predict. Which is why Obamanable stayed away. This was a must win for the Repubs, obviously not for the Demos or they would have had a more dynamic candidate. Our killer president thought it was more important to hold meetings with Jewish religious groups. Can't get enough of them it seems. Meanwhile, Finkelstein and Amy Goodman continue to do the Chomsky thing, damage control. Here's something I wrote in response to an interview of Finkelstein by Goodman on Monday.

Before commenting I felt I had to watch the Amy/Norman show but not before having my breakfast and allowing enough time for it to be digested.Not a word was there about AIPAC other than the telling clip from Obama, not a word about Congress in the Chomskyist damage control tradition and when Finkelstein repeatedly said that Obama was not speaking a word of truth and did not believe what he was saying, Amy, a poor interviewer at best whose questioning, in classic MSM style, rarely relates to what her guests have just said. neglected to ask him what Obama had said was not true since what he was listing for AIPAC's benefit, apart from his feelings, were important actions he had taken on Israel's behalf, indicating that what Tom Friedman (!), who at this point is way head of both Finkelstein and Chomsky, said is true of Obama, that if he has not proved to be the most pro-Israel president he is certainly one of the most. Friedman has also written that Congress has been "bought" by the Lobby, a fact that Finkelstein, like Chomsky avoids by not mentioning Congress at all and Goodman, Ms. Damage Control Now! (which is what her program should really be called when discussing Israel-US relations), is not about to bring it up. That for all intents and purposes, she is in thrall to the Jewish/Zionist establishment was made self-evident when following the publication of Mearsheimer and Walt's ground breaking book on the Israel Lobby, rather than have one or both of them as guests on her program, she had Chomsky, the Lobby's chief gatekeeper (US Left Division) on as a guest to put his finger in the dyke lest people read M & W's book and begin to learn the truth and act on it. That's five years ago and Ms. Damage Control Now! has still not interviewed either one about the book or the issue although she has had both of them on once, I believe, to speak on other issues.

Ronald said...

Jeffrey continues:

Nor did she provide any coverage of either the AIPAC convention in March nor the Occupy AIPAC meeting and protest at the same time. Same as last year when she ignored both AIPAC and the MoveOver AIPAC conference and protest it. Amy, who like Chomsky and Finkelstein have become cult figures, needs to hear about it.

The rest of what Norman had to say you can attribute to his faith in his tribe, that after six decades it/they are finally giving signs of declining interest and support for Israel (if what American Jews do and think should be the measures of the success of the Palestinian cause.) For Finkelstein, their self-styled and self-promoting long time champion, the Palestinians seem to be more in the way, his way, these days, and not appreciative of all he has done and the "sacrifices" he has made for them. His patronizing attitude is no more attractive in this interview than it was in the one he did with Frank Barat in the UK which he tried to suppress before it went online. It is interesting how he and Chomsky take the same position when it comes to their critics from veterans of the Palestinian struggle, that what they, and "they" now includes Palestinians, themselves, are doing, is harmful to the Palestinian cause, I think NF even used the term, "criminal," and that what they should all do is follow what Chomsky and Finkelstein are telling them and us. Namely, they should continue to assert that international law and the international consensus is on their side and they, evidently, should put their trust in it since, we should notice, neither Finkelstein nor Chomsky ever propose a program for alternative actions, such as stopping aid to Israel, going after liberal Democrats who pledge allegiance to Israel, sitting in maybe at El Al airlines ticket offices as was done to South African Airways, forcing them to close down. But then again, neither Norm or Noam like making such comparisons. The fact of the matter that neither Chomsky nor Finkelstein want us to face and act upon is that the greatest obstacle to the Palestinians achieving justice are not those who have stolen and continue to steal their land but the Congress and the American agents of Israel who tell it what to do and pay them to do it.

Ronald said...

Ronald responded:

Dear Jeff:

Wisconsin. Yeah I could see from a clip of only a few seconds that Barret wasn’t the most charismatic opponent. Yet, as a follower for years of Miller on election fraud—yeah I know it lands me in the conspiracy camp—I wanted Simon’s points to get a hearing, namely, that the Democratic turnout was heavy and the votes were counted in secret by Republicans and that it’s now come to a point where the exit polls, even the early, “untainted” ones, can no longer be trusted.

On the Norm: Thanks especially for your analysis of Amy which really helped. I hadn’t realized it was so bad. I suppose once you’re on the Finkelstein/Chomsky railroad you can’t take side trips, such as to W&M, etc.

Finkelstein I’ve written off as a Zionist for at least 5 years when I heard him at Columbia give some mumbo jumbo legalism on why the One state was impossible, and then later on why no BDS, etc. At least this time on DN he was more open in saying that he’s repeating Chomsky, it may be a good idea, but if it’s not politically feasible, etc.

On a separate Norm issue, I had also in mind to share with you one of my theories--this one which occurred when Al Jazeera played that documentary that was made about him. I had always wondered why he so suicidally (when it came to his career at De Paul or any other University) attacked Dershowitz even to the point of going to the trouble of writing a book detailing his plagiarism, and then following up with an embarrassing performance debating Dershowitz on Democracy Now calling him out to his face that he was a plagiarist.

To cut to the chase—I could explain more in person about what I saw in the documentary—Finkelstein, the ultimate New Yorker, was unhappy living in Chicago at a Catholic University no less, and thus sought and found a (long way around) to come home.

Ya gotta admit, it’s novel.

Best wishes,


Ronald said...

Jeffrey B. responded:

Hi Ron,

You can put any or all of that on your blog, Ron, and thanks for asking. At this point in time, with the situation being as disgusting as it is, I'm not keeping my mouth shut. I am planning to write something about Noam, Norm (just ordered his book) and Amy because they are key elements in suppressing the vital political activity that is needed to counter AIPAC's liberal lackeys in Congress and the Jewish establishment itself. It seems like our lanzmen have all sides of the argument under control.

Here's what she had on yesterday's DCN!:

Democracy Now ! 6.7.12

Israel Announces More West Bank Settlements

Goodman: The Israeli government has announced a new round of illegal settlement construction in the occupied West Bank. On Wednesday, Israel said it plans to build more than 500 new housing units in various West Bank settlements. Speaking to lawmakers, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said no Israeli administration has been friendlier to the settlements than his.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "There is no government that supports or will support settlements more than the government I lead. I also say that there is no government that withstood such heavy pressures that could harm settlement."

The new settlement building continues Israel’s stance of flouting a U.S.-backed pledge to stop West Bank expansion. In Washington, State Department spokesperson Mark Toner criticized Israel’s plan.

Mark Toner: "We’re very clear that continued Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank undermines peace efforts and contradicts Israeli commitments and obligations, including the 2003 roadmap. You know, our position on settlement — settlements remains unchanged. We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity."

Notice, there is no comment that the world community considers all the settlements to be illegal and that the Obama administration has caved into totally to Netanyahu on this issue. Nor has Ms. Damage Control Now reported on the frequent meetings two in the last two weeks with different groups of Jewish religious leaders assuring them that he is NOT "even-handed" when it comes to Israel and Palestine and that his priority is Israel's security. Obviously, kissing Jewish behinds took priority over going to Wisconsin. Also, although I am not a regular listener to DN! since our station plays it at 4 PM, I have yet to hear her report on any of the overwhelming Congressional votes on AIPAC backed legislation. Have you heard any, such as the 411-2 vote reaffirming US subservience to Israel and calling for Israel to be admitted to Nato on May 9th? In the end, she could be said to represent the American Left where there is no there there.