In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

[superbeets]

[FONT=&quot]Originally published on Nov. 12, 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic," said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. "It's kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Cities are not only bursting with Democrats: They are easier to organize than rural areas where people live far apart from one another, said Sasha Issenberg, author of The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"One reason Democrats can maximize votes in Philadelphia is that it's very easy to knock on every door," Issenberg said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Still, was there not one contrarian voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods - clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia - fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Upon hearing the numbers, Steve Miskin, a spokesman for Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, brought up his party's voter-identification initiative - which was held off for this election - and said, "We believe we need to continue ensuring the integrity of the ballot."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The absence of a voter-ID law, however, would not stop anyone from voting for a Republican candidate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia who has studied African American precincts, said he had occasionally seen 100 percent of the vote go for the Democratic candidate. Chicago and Atlanta each had precincts that registered no votes for Republican Sen. John McCain in 2008.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"I'd be surprised if there weren't a handful of precincts that didn't cast a vote for Romney," he said. But the number of zero precincts in Philadelphia deserves examination, Sabato added.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Not a single vote for Romney or even an error? That's worth looking into," he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In a city with 1,687 of the ward subsets known as divisions, each with hundreds of voters, 59 is about 3.5 percent of the total.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In some of those divisions, it's not only Romney supporters who are missing. Republicans in general are nearly extinct.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Take North Philadelphia's 28th Ward, third division, bounded by York, 24th, and 28th Streets and Susquehanna Avenue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]About 94 percent of the 633 people who live in that division are black. Seven white residents were counted in the 2010 census.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the entire 28th Ward, Romney received only 34 votes to Obama's 5,920.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the ward's third division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Four of the registered Republicans no longer lived there; four others didn't answer their doors. City Board of Elections registration data say a registered Republican used to live at 25th and York Streets, but none of the neighbors across the street Friday knew him. Cathy Santos, 56, founder of the National Alliance of Women Veterans, had one theory: "We ran him out of town!" she said and laughed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]James Norris, 19, who lives down the street, is listed as a Republican in city data. But he said he's a Democrat and voted for Obama because he thinks the president will help the middle class.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A few blocks away, Eric Sapp, a 42-year-old chef, looked skeptical when told that city data had him listed as a registered Republican. "I got to check on that," said Sapp, who voted for Obama.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Eighteen Republicans reportedly live in the nearby 15th Division, according to city registration records. The 15th has the distinction of pitching two straight Republican shutouts - zero votes for McCain in 2008, zero for Romney on Tuesday. Oh, and 13 other city divisions did the same thing in 2008 and 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Three of the 15th's registered Republicans were listed as living in the same apartment, but the tenant there said he had never heard of them. The addresses of several others could not be found.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On West Albert Street, Duke Dunston says he knows he's a registered Republican, but he's never voted for one.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The leader of the 28th Ward is Democrat Anthony Clark, who grew up under the tutelage of the late power broker and Democratic ward leader Carol Ann Campbell. Clark is also a city commissioner, one of three elected officials who oversee Philadelphia elections.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"In the African American community from 33d to 24th between Ridge and Somerset, there is a large population of Democrats and there are not many Republicans in there at all. I think it's the issues. People are not feeling that Romney is in touch with them," Clark said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Despite the Democratic advantage in the 28th Ward, Clark says he also makes sure party workers are getting the vote out.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"People get out, give out literature, talk to people about the issues. Also, they work the polls," Clark said. "People know them in their divisions."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Clark struggled to recall anyone in his area who ever identified as a Republican. Though that is not something anyone would likely volunteer to a Democratic ward leader, Clark eventually remembered Lewis Harris, the GOP leader in the nearby 29th ward, and that rare species: an urban black Republican.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Harris, in an interview, said he works for the GOP mostly because he believes city neighborhoods need attention from both parties.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"I open the door to the community and let them be exposed to diversity in the political party," Harris said. "I want political community-based leverage."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Harris cast his vote for Romney, but he's also an Obama fan.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"I love both of those people," he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nationally, 93 percent of African Americans voted for Obama, according to exit polls, so it's not surprising that in some parts of Philadelphia, the president did even better than that.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the entire city, Obama got 85 percent of the vote. His worst showing was in South Philadelphia's 26th Ward. There, the president garnered 52.3 percent of the vote, compared to 46.6 percent for Romney.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paula Terreri, 57, a 26th Ward Republican who describes herself as a devout Catholic, said outside the polls on Tuesday that she voted for Romney because she opposed abortion.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Many parts of Philadelphia and other big cities simply lack Republican voters, a fact of campaigning that has been true since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Stanford University's Rodden said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In 2008, McCain got zero votes in 57 Philadelphia voting divisions. That was a big increase from 2004, when George W. Bush was blanked in just five divisions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As the first African American president, Obama held immense appeal to black voters, but skin color is only part of the story, said Mark Sawyer, a political science professor at UCLA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Previous Republican candidates, including Richard Nixon and Jack Kemp, supported affirmative action and urban development, but their party has abandoned those stances, Sawyer said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Romney's comments, including talking about people who want "more free stuff from the government" after a visit to the NAACP, only further distanced African Americans who felt the comments played to stereotypes about welfare, Sawyer said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Inquirer Staff Writer Bob Warner contributed to this report.[/FONT]

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Trump says he's afraid Hillary will beat him in 'rigged' election as he lays the groundwork to delegitimize a loss in November – and motivate his base to vote [/h]

• Trump made the extraordinary claim at a rally in Ohio on Monday
• He also suggested that the Democrats rigged their primary
• Trump also claimed Clinton was 'evil' and said Sanders 'made a deal with the devil' by endorsing her at the DNC

By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM IN MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA and ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED: 03:53, 2 August 2016 | UPDATED: 13:36, 2 August 2016

 

[superbeets]

• SHARE PICTURE

​

+6


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed at an Ohio rally on Monday (pictured) that he 'fears' the general election will be rigged in November

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Mitt Romney got zero votes in some Greater Cleveland precincts[/h]By Tom Feran on Wednesday, November 21st, 2012 at 6:00 a.m.
Election night results showed Barack Obama topped Mitt Romney in Ohio by a margin of 2 percentage points, but the distribution of votes was much less even than that split.

Romney won 72 of Ohio's 88 counties, including two that no Republican had won since 1972.

"On a map depicting the 2012 outcome, Ohio would be a sea of red with islands of blue," The Plain Dealer reported.

Obama's margin of victory was provided by Democratic strongholds like Cuyahoga County. In some areas, his tally was so lopsided that the numbers caused disbelief.

Readers asked PolitiFact Ohio to check into the accuracy of chain emails and blog and Facebook postings about Romney’s performance in some Cuyahoga County precincts.

"Mitt Romney received exactly zero votes in at least 12 Cuyahoga County precincts," one email said. Others made similar claims, citing 9 or 21 or some other number of precincts, depending on the source.

The emails and postings variously described the numbers as "strange," "disturbing," "bizarre," "alarming" and "unprecedented," and some questioned whether the figures indicated impropriety.

So just what do the election numbers show? Did Obama indeed pitch a shutout in a dozen precincts?

PolitiFact Ohio started with the unofficial returns posted by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections for the county's 1,077 precincts.

The table shows that Romney received no votes in 17 precincts in Cleveland. Romney also was shut out in one precinct in East Cleveland. That's 18 total precincts in Cuyahoga County where Romney received no votes.

Romney got just one vote in each of 20 precincts in Cleveland, two precincts in East Cleveland and two precincts in Warrensville Heights. And he got just two votes in each of 28 other precincts in Cleveland, East Cleveland and Highland Hills.

Some online postings about the election results linked to a Plain Dealer article by data analysis editor Rich Exner.

Exner told us that one sentence in the article was cited in a number of postings and emails to him: "The vote, incredibly, was unanimous in Obama's favor in nine Cleveland precincts." (Because third-party candidates received votes in the eight other Cleveland precincts where Romney received none, those weren't unanimous.)

Some of the blogs and emails interpreted his use of the word "incredibly" as meaning "not credible" and therefore not true.

Not so, says Exner.

"I used the word in the sense of 'amazingly' or 'strange but true,' as in 'Incredibly, he was still alive' -- meaning 'it's amazing' and 'he was alive,' not that it's not true.

"The vote was lopsided, but it was believable."

In his checks around the state, Exner found lopsided tallies for Obama in other urban areas, including precincts with no votes for Romney in Cincinnati (Hamilton County) and Dayton (Montgomery County).

PolitiFact Ohio also checked the 2008 results for Cuyahoga County. We found that John McCain got no votes in 18 precincts then, or the same total that denied any votes to Romney.

CBS News took note of the shutout precincts in Cuyahoga County while reporting that Romney also received no votes in 59 voting divisions in Philadelphia.

"Incredulous Republicans might be tempted to indict voter fraud as a culprit," the CBS story said, but "the reality is less salacious than the conspiracy theory - a consequence of demography, not electoral shenanigans. Most big cities are heavily Democratic to begin with, and geographic patterns of racial segregation may yield an even more one-sided electoral result in certain areas than in the city as a whole."

All the Cuyahoga County precincts in which Romney was shut out are in neighborhoods with heavily African-American or Latino populations.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in August underlines the significance of that demographic. It showed Obama leading by a 2-to-1 margin among Hispanic voters and had his support at 94 percent among black voters, with zero percent favoring Romney. Six percent said they were undecided or had no opinion. None of the poll's 120 black respondents picked Romney.

An election day exit poll by NBC News found that black voters in Ohio picked Obama over Romney by 96 percent to 3 percent. That percentage matches the spread by which Obama won in Cleveland precincts east of the Cuyahoga River.

For more perspective, PolitiFact Ohio turned to an authority on voting in Cleveland: Mark Salling, senior fellow in the Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University and director of its Northern Ohio Data & Information Service since 1981. He is also Ohio’s liaison to the Census Bureau for its redistricting data programs.

Salling cited census data that showed more than 90 percent of the voting age population is black in 15 of the 17 Cleveland precincts in which Romney received no votes. The others are heavily Hispanic, and all are low-income neighborhoods "where Democrats traditionally are very, very strong," he said.

"Using standard measures of probability, given the overall distribution of percentages in the county's precincts," he said, "I find that a zero percent vote for Romney, though somewhat unlikely, is also entirely feasible."

Conversely, he said, those same demographics suggest it is "virtually impossible Obama would receive zero votes" in the county’s precincts. It may be surprising that no Romney votes were found in some precincts, Salling told us, "but it is a far reach to suggest fraud as the explanation."

The claim that Mitt Romney received no votes in more than a dozen precincts in Cleveland may seem amazing. But voting history, registration, demographics and statistical analysis say it is both feasible and credible. The Board of Elections says it is actually understated.

On the Truth-O-Meter, the claim rates as True.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Who Really Won the 1960 Election?[/h]Historians/History
tags: Richard Nixon, JFK, Kennedys, 1960 election - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/133484#sthash.uMzd92eK.dpuf



November 8, 2010 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the presidential election of 1960, which still very much interests those who care about disputed elections and how best to resolve them. The clearest sign of that continuing interest is the steady stream of new scholarly books on that subject. Some of the most recent include Gary A. Donaldson’s The First Modern Campaign: Kennedy, Nixon, and the Election of 1960 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007); William J. Rorabaugh, The Real Making of the President: Kennedy, Nixon and the 1960 Election (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2009); and Edmund F. Kallina, Jr., Kennedy v. Nixon: The Presidential Election of 1960 (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2010).
Why, one may wonder, does all this serious scholarly attention still get paid to a single electoral contest that ended half a century ago without (in marked contrast to Bush v. Gore in 2000) much in the way of recounts or lawsuits? There are several reasons for this. The 1960 presidential election was the first in which television can fairly be said to have been central to the result. By that year, most American homes had TVs for the first time. Richard Nixon’s decision to accept John Kennedy’s proposal for televised presidential debates meant that for the first time both major-party candidates appeared for a sustained period together on TV once it had become the nation’s dominant medium of mass communication. The novelty of this in 1960 produced very high rates of viewership, thereby making the election memorable and altering its outcome. Simply put, this form of “free media” provided the oxygen for Kennedy’s presidential bid that fall. Before the first televised presidential debate on September 26, most polls showed him behind. After it, most showed him ahead, a pattern that continued through Election Day.
The impact of televised debates also showed immediately on the campaign trail. Following the first debate, the size of Kennedy’s crowds roughly doubled. Even more noticeable was the change in energy. Prior to the first debate, the mood among onlookers at most Kennedy rallies had been friendly but no more. After the first debate, Kennedy campaign appearances acquired the kind of energy and enthusiasm one associates with an appearance in 1960 of a rock and roll star. Journalists assigned to cover his appearances came up with new terms to describe the behavior of Kennedy’s young female fans. There were the “jumpers,” who began jumping up and down as his car approached, the “double jumpers,” who were pairs (usually sisters or friends) who jumped in unison while holding hands, and the “runners” who broke through the restraining line and pursued his car on foot.
The sharp increase in the size of Kennedy’s crowds and their enthusiasm ultimately mattered because it motivated Kennedy campaign volunteers to work very hard and thus to drive up turnout among Democratic-leaning voters, in the nation’s biggest metropolitan areas especially. The reaction to Kennedy’s appearance in the televised debates also motivated most Democratic leaders, such as the heads of the urban machines, the chieftains of organized labor and the Southern governors, to work hard for his election. No one understood all that more than Kennedy himself. When asked after the election how he had managed to defeat Nixon, Kennedy replied crisply “television.”
A second reason for the excitement then and interest later was the simple fact of Kennedy’s Catholicism, which broke an unofficial but still very significant “rule” of the American political system as it was in those days. Until Kennedy won in 1960, the sense of most knowledgeable people was that only a white, male, Protestant could realistically aspire to serve as the head of the American government. Even many of Kennedy’s liberal supporters firmly believed that, such as United Auto Workers union chief Walter Reuther, who had argued passionately during the 1960 primaries that no Catholic could be elected because anti-Catholic prejudice among Baptist and Methodist Democrats was too strong. A lot of older American Catholics with bad memories of Al Smith’s presidential campaign in 1928 felt the same way. All that earlier effort had seemingly accomplished was to stir up anti-Catholic sentiment to no positive result; why go through the same thing all over again, many of them thought to themselves, and sometimes said out loud. For Kennedy’s Catholic supporters in particular, the real “Massachusetts miracle” was not that state’s economic comeback in the 1980s but rather Kennedy’s victory in 1960, which altered assumptions about who could realistically hope to hold high public office in the United States and paved the way for the next person who was not a white, male, Protestant to win: Barack Obama in 2008. Kennedy’s victory, like Obama’s, also serves as a source of encouragement to many of those in the over 70 percent of the American population that is not white, male and Protestant.
A third reason for the continuing scholarly interest in the presidential election of 1960, closely related to the TV and Catholicism factors, was that the outcome was an upset. Until the televised debates, most knowledgeable observers of the American political scene had assumed that Nixon would ultimately prevail. Yes, Kennedy was young, handsome, well-spoken and had a lot of family money behind him, the pundits acknowledged. For those reasons, he would make the contest interesting, it was quietly thought, but in the end come up short, thanks to the extraordinarily broad popularity of Eisenhower-era Republicanism, with which Nixon and his running mate (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Henry Cabot Lodge) were closely identified. Thus, as the 1960s opened, the prevailing view among the experts was that Republicans would retain the White House and the country probably would not change very much. Kennedy’s surprising victory helped alter that situation.
As important as those three factors are in explaining continued interest in the 1960 presidential election, others have intensified that curiosity. That electoral contest was truly remarkable in that it was both the closest of the twentieth century and the one with the highest turnout ever. Kennedy’s margin of victory in the popular vote worked out to an average of one half of one vote per precinct nationwide, which is as close to a tie as we are likely ever to see. Even more striking was the high turnout. The most meaningful measure is the fraction of the adult population that cast ballots, and in 1960 that figure was the highest ever recorded. The national average was approximately 63.5 percent, but that figure is misleading in one important respect. On Election Day in 1960, the Jim Crow system still existed in the South and the Border States. That system’s barriers to voting (poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation and all the rest) seriously depressed voting in at least fifteen states. In the other thirty-five, however, turnout was typically well above the national average. For example, in Franklin County, Ohio (where this commentary was written and published), the home of the state’s capital city (Columbus), voter registration as a percentage of all adults reached an all-time high in 1960, as did turnout: an astonishing 83 percent of all registered voters.
The closeness of the election combined with the record turnout to put the maximum possible strain on the nation’s electoral apparatus, and ultimately led to problems in election administration. Those problems have also fueled continuing scholarly interest in the 1960 presidential election because of the difficulty in determining whether Kennedy really won through honest means or corrupt ones. Excessive partisanship on both sides has complicated that analysis. The first account of the election, Theodore White’s classic entitled The Making of the President 1960 (New York: Atheneum, 1961) was written by a Kennedy partisan. The second account, the part of Richard Nixon’s memoir entitled Six Crises (Garden City: Doubleday, 1962) that dealt with the election, was even more biased in favor of Nixon. Those two accounts helped create a partisan kind of debate on a serious issue, which has clouded clear thinking ever since.
Scholarly analysis of the question of how Kennedy won has focused, quite rightly, on administration of the electoral process in two crucial states: Illinois and Texas. Kennedy ultimately was credited with the electoral votes of both, which gave him victory in the Electoral College tally. The problem with answering the question of how he prevailed there is twofold in nature. In Illinois, the most recent and fair-minded study (Kallina’s Kennedy v. Nixon) concludes that sufficient evidence does not exist to determine whether Chicago’s Democratic machine stole more votes there than Republicans did downstate. Texas presents a different kind of problem. A system of free and fair elections in the modern sense had not yet taken hold on the ground there in 1960. Voter fraud was fairly common, safeguards to prevent it were few, and 1960 was no different in those respects. Thus, the most dispassionate analysis of this issue from the perspective of fifty years later is that we will never know whether Kennedy really “won,” in the sense of what result an entirely honest and effective administration of the electoral process in Illinois and Texas would have produced on Election Day in 1960.
But if Kennedy’s victory in a legal sense remains forever clouded, in a political sense there was no doubt, then or afterward. The GOP was much the weaker of the two parties nationally in 1960. In order for its presidential candidate to win then, he had to do so clearly or not at all. Those at the top of the nation’s political system understood that hard fact. Compounding that sense of a decisive outcome politically, if not legally, was that most leading Republicans privately blamed Nixon’s own mistakes, not Democratic cheating in Illinois and Texas, for his defeat. Even his own running mate thought so. Most decisive on that score was the attitude of outgoing Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. By Election Day Eisenhower had become certain of a Nixon loss and deeply angry with him for the way he had run his campaign. Eisenhower had urged Nixon not to debate Kennedy, predicting correctly that such extensive television exposure would ultimately help the lesser known-Democrat. Nixon compounded that mistake in the eyes of Eisenhower and other leading Republicans by failing to prepare properly for the debates, which left him feeling and looking weak and tired for the crucial first one.
It was this divergence between legal and political factors more than anything else that explains why there was no Bush v. Gore type dispute after Election Day in 1960. Law and politics are closely related, but they are not the same. For Nixon to have mounted an effective legal challenge afterward, the two major parties in Illinois, Texas and nationally would have had to be in better balance, and his own leading supporters would have had to believe that Nixon had run the better campaign and so been robbed. Thus, the outcome in 1960 has had longer-term implications for disputed elections, but not very obvious ones to most students of that episode. The resulting confusion continues to drive research, discussion and debate, with no end in sight.
- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/133484#sthash.uMzd92eK.dpuf

 

[Willie99]

those are the 90% demographics I talk about, although maybe I should change it to "sometimes 100%"

the numbers are real, they're found in the voting records and in exit polling election after election after election after election ....................

 

[GasMan]

They are handed instructions on how to vote correctly for Democrats...happened to me here in Biloxi 50 feet from the voting building...which by the way is illegal.

 

[neverbend]

Most of the voters of inner city America have not even finished high school, I'm thinking that about
3 or 4% had to have pressed the wrong lever (Romney) so this 0% tallies had to be tampered with.
Like political correctness voter fraud has been put up with much to long. I'd hate to be a republican
official called on to check ghetto voting sights in those areas, trying to do the right thing.
I'm thinking a bad beatdown or even worse might be the outcome!

 

[GasMan]

Allen West brought a voting quality team into a previnct near Miami last election and was kicked out.

 

[neverbend]

Video sting by O’Keefe, first reported by WND, prompted the resignation of Democrat campaign staffer Patrick Moran, the son of Rep. Jim Moran son, and a criminal investigation by the Arlington County Police Department in Northern Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Prosecutors decided not to press charges.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/undercov...ping-ease-of-voter-fraud/#KmwmWxvH1dXCscOH.99

 

[SheriffJoe]

The fix is in.

Anyone who can't see this is blind.

 

[MantisToboggan]

The fix is in.

Anyone who can't see this is blind.

They aren't going to need to fix this one. Trump's taking himself out.

 

[SheriffJoe]

They aren't going to need to fix this one. Trump's taking himself out.

Maybe Trump is part of the fix.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Maybe Trump is part of the fix.

Now that's a theory I can get behind. Come on, Joe, join me with Never Trump.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Now that's a theory I can get behind. Come on, Joe, join me with Never Trump.

Never Trump?

He's the nominee. What can possibly be done to change that?

 

[MantisToboggan]

Never Trump?

He's the nominee. What can possibly be done to change that?

I'm not being serious, man. We're fucked either way. There's nothing that can be done at this point.

 

[vitterd]

They aren't going to need to fix this one. Trump's taking himself out.

"The fix is in".....that's the new narrative. It helps them cope with the loss. Everytime a republican loses.....it's always every reason but they didn't get enough votes. Figure if they set this narrative now.....it might stick

 

[MantisToboggan]

"The fix is in".....that's the new narrative. It helps them cope with the loss. Everytime a republican loses.....it's always every reason but they didn't get enough votes. Figure if they set this narrative now.....it might stick

You got it, man. Whatever you say.

 

[SheriffJoe]

I'm not being serious, man. We're fucked either way. There's nothing that can be done at this point.

You don't think that...

Nah, impossible...those crazy Sheriff Joe conspiracies!

 

[MantisToboggan]

You don't think that...

Nah, impossible...those crazy Sheriff Joe conspiracies!

I was saying I wasn't being serious about Never Trump. Wouldn't shock me if Trump is just in this for attention and doesn't mind helping the Clintons as a side benefit.