Overheard at Starbucks

As the navel gazing continues, we’ve heard a number of interesting explanations for the election results. It’s Bush’s fault, for example. Then there’s this: two people were having an intelligent conversation about the power of incumbency at a Starbucks near UCLA. “I agree,” said one, “but what about that hair for a 65 year old man? Jet black with those wisps of white at the temples? Ewww. Get real.” Of course it always helps your opponent if he gets 99% of the vote in some precincts.

4 Responses to “Overheard at Starbucks”

  1. Zachriel Says:

    Dinocrat: Of course it always helps your opponent if he gets 99% of the vote in some precincts.

    Still having troubles with statistics? African Americans overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama, about 96% nationwide. That means it would not be unusual for Obama to have received anywhere from 93-99% of the vote in a particular precinct with a largely black population.

    The New Black Panther in your link was a nice touch, though.
    http://wonkette.com/488748/fox-friends-new-black-panthers-back-and-intimidating-voters-by-holding-door-open-for-old-white-ladies

  2. feeblemind Says:

    Dinocrat, you are considered a crazy lunatic by GOP acolytes for even entertaining the question of voter fraud. Even Rush discounts the possibility.

    Still, here is an interesting bit of trivia:

    FUN FACT: Obama Lost in Every State
    with a Voter Photo-ID Law

    http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2012/11/fun-fact-obama-lost-in-every-state-with.html?

    One wonders what the percentage of voter turnout was in those 99% precincts? Was it close to 100%?

    I must have read at least a half dozen stories on voter fraud.

    Did voter fraud change the election out come? As no one is watching the watchers, we will never know.

  3. feeblemind Says:

    From Pundit Press:

    “President Obama must have run a great campaign considering the tremendous numbers he put up in numerous big cities. Over in Philadelphia, he was lucky enough to get 90% percent turnout in some districts with over 99% of the vote.

    In Cleveland, in some districts he did even better with an astounding 100% of the vote in dozens of locations. For example, in Cleveland’s Fifth Ward, Mr. Obama won districts E, F, and G 1,337 to Mitt Romney’s… 0. And in case you’re wondering, Gary Johnson received more votes than Mr. Romney.

    Well, maybe that’s just a fluke. In the Ninth Ward, Mr. Obama won districts D-G with a paltry total of 1,740 to… 3. Hey, at least Romney got .2% of the vote!

    Okay, what if we look at an entire Ward? No way this trend continues, right? An entire ward. Why not do the First Ward? Obama won that one 12,857 to… 94. This time Romney got .7% of the vote. He’s moving up in the world!

    In total, there are 21 districts in Cleveland where Mr. Romney received precisely 0 votes. In 23 districts, he received precisely 1 vote. And naturally, in one of the districts where Obama won 100% of the vote, there was 100% turnout. What a coincidence!

    By the way, in case you are thinking that Romney did so poorly because maybe those districts were not very populated: Nope. In those 44 districts, Mr. Obama won 14,686 to 23. That’s .16% of the vote for Romney.

    http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/what-luck-obama-won-dozens-of-cleveland.html

  4. Zachriel Says:

    From the link to the link provided:
    http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-08/news/34995157_1_voter-turnout-president-obama-gop-voters

    House Speaker Sam Smith, musing over “staggering” turnout in some city precincts and reacting to wrong information that “90 percent of the precincts in Philadelphia County turned out over 90 percent of voters,” called the ability to get such numbers “questionable.”

    Smith’s math does not add up. Voter turnout in Philadelphia was around 60 percent, according to state election figures.

Leave a Reply