"Ohio Does Its Magic: Hillary's 3% Exit Poll Margin Morphs to 10% in the Vote"
"Ohio just did for HRC what it did for Bush in 2004. Bush's Ohio vote share exceeded his "pristine" exit poll share by 5.4%.
Clinton's 2-party vote share exceeded her unadjusted (9pm) exit poll share by 3.6% (55.2 – 51.6%).
Clinton won the 2-party vote by a 10.6% margin (55.3 – 44.7%). But her unadjusted exit poll margin was just 3.4% (51.7 – 48.3%).
As is always the case, the Final Exit Poll was adjusted to match the vote count.
For comparison, the Unadjusted and Final Exit polls are provided below.
The final Zogby Ohio pre-election poll had the race dead even. The poll was confirmed by the unadjusted exit poll, just as it was in New Hampshire and in 2004 in the battleground states. John Zogby must be one awfully frustrated pollster. Since 2000, election fraud has consistently skewed his projections. But he never mentions the F-word.
It should be obvious by now to anyone who has analyzed pre- and post-election polling data since 2000 that primaries and general elections have been silently screaming election fraud. But the main stream media and the politicians keep blinders on the public while catapulting the misinformation that the pre and post-election polls are wrong and the vote count is correct. They never mention the probability of election fraud as the root cause of the polling discrepancies. Like 9/11, election fraud is a” third-rail” subject not to be openly discussed, much less investigated by the media.
Tommy Heinrich was a NY Yankee baseball player who played right field with Joe DiMaggio in center. His nickname was "Old Reliable" because he could always be counted on to deliver in the "clutch". Ohio is "Old Reliable" for the Republicans. It will deliver its phantom votes in the clutch for John McCain just like Diebold's CEO and Secretary of State Blackwell delivered them for Bush in 2004.
Stalin said it: It's not who votes. It's who counts."
"Clinton Comeback: Courtesy of Diebold"
"Granted, this has been an ugly Democratic Primary season. I've seen things come out of the Clinton campaign that I would have never expected, and surely I'm disappointed. I would have hoped that the Clinton's would have had more respect for the positive direction that the majority of the country is determined to take, rather than the pursuit of "winning" by any means. The fact that the Republicans have gleefully done all they can to ensure Hillary continues this behavior should be a clear indication of what side she is benefiting.
However, this is not why she won three of the four March 4th contests. Once again we are supposed to believe that it was the leaked memo, or the red phone ad, or buyer's remorse or some other such nonsense. In reality however, she won for the same reason George Bush has been president for eight years. She won because this country still uses Diebold and ES&S voting machines that have time and again altered the outcome of our elections. I don't think I can say it any clearer than that."
"I was listening to Thom Hartmann on Air America and he did an excellent story on the Texas Democratic Primary.
For those who haven't heard: Rush Limbaugh told his zombie audience to vote for Hillary in the primary so that Hillary would stay in the race.
There is some dispute as to how many dittoheads actually went out and did this. At first it got some attention, but then Fox tried to play it down. (I suppose that if it got too much attention this story would serve the purpose opposite from its original intent; i.e. If people became aware that Republicans WANT to run against Hillary, that would hurt her campaign.)
I will go one further and say that the "Republicans changed the primary results by voting for Hillary" story is really a cover. It helps to explain why Hillary won by 3 percentage points when the early results had her losing by 3 points.
What do I think? What has been happening in every election for the past eight years? It was stolen. What has changed that would stop computer hacks from stealing an election? Nothing. Why should they stop?
Here is Verified Voting Website that describes the current systems being used in Texas.
I would like to point out one pertinent statement:
[I]t is safe to say that a great deal of the votes in the Texas primary will be cast on paperless DREs, (direct-recording electronic machines -ed.) and will not be verifiable.
What makes me think that the story is a cover? Look at the Texas Secretary of State site:
Notice how many counties in Texas had ZERO Republicans voting. I will list them: Brooks, Cottle, Crockett, Culberson, Dickens, Foard, Hall, Hardeman, Hudspeth, Kent, LaSalle, Loving, Maverick, Reeves, Stonewarll, Upton, Zapata, Zalava. Zeros all the way across. NOBODY in those counties voted Republican. It is a miracle!
Are they serious? Do they really expect us to believe that 100% of the Republicans in those counties followed Rush and voted for Hillary?
People need to wake up. They stole it in New Hampshire and they stole it in Texas. If we are not vigilant, they will arrange to have Clinton/McCain in 2008."
Looks to me like it is already in the works, the way Obama has been getting savaged lately.
