Voting machine conspiracy theories have been officially discredited

...our side figured out how to unfix them? I think that's why Rove couldn't wrap his big canned ham head around losing Ohio.

They said they would be monitoring Rove's servers. Maybe...?

https://

"Meltdown" starts at 9'26" It looks like the numbers Karl expected didn't match the official tally.

His role was designed to be shocked, shocked I say at the Romney loss.

The Romney loss is designed for nothing more than to set up Jeb Bush as the savior in 2016.

Romney was fed bullshit about his chances all the way through so he'd play his part. Rove and Co. knew there was no way Romney would ever be president.

2012 was nothing more than a setup to put Jeb Bush in the white house come 2016.

Most of these pundits, karl rove, dick morris, barone, knew romney had zero chance.

they're not amused with purse strings guy, rove.

Ooophs, perhaps seems to fail.

Oh MY! :-P

FAILED

Nonsense. There was NEVER anything approaching fraud related to the machines. It was a fantasy concocted by hucksters to separate people saddened because their candidate lost from their cash.

And the tinfoilhat brigade eat up the bullshit served to them rather than accept the fact they had been grifted.

But I'm not one of the tinfoil brigade. I am decidedly NOT a conspiracy theorist, just playing devil's advocate...you just go ahead and decide everything for the rest of us.

Whatever gets you through the night....

You accept the bullshit grift instead of reality.

You are the problem.

I was playing devil's advocate. I don't accept any bullshit. I was just answering a question theoretically.

But if you makes your widdew bwain feel superior...feel free!

No other argument, so you resort to ad hominem.

The grifters will make money no matter who loses. Right now, the biggest makrks are Allen West supporters, and the hucksters will make a fortune off those assholes.

"And now the ad hominem attack". Nice try. Really??? zzzzzzzzz

Logical discourse requires logical response.

The amount of fraud that was programmed in could just have been insufficient to win in this case.

It's just common sense.

came before the election. The story on the software was noted in national news sources (christian science monitor, among others). They had no way of knowing whether the court would throw out the case or not. If they did the switch and the court okayed the case, they would be busted for sure. That is why I think Husted left early and Rove was frantic. They planned to throw the elected but Husted decided he wouldn't sacrifice himself as the potential of a court-ordered investigation was looming.

1. It's not official and does not involve any official.
2. One person putting in new code is not necessarily a conspiracy.
3. Not necessarily does not mean it is not.
4. When your reason employs and either-or, you're not proving your point.

Welcome to DU, and substitute malarkey for bullshit if it helps.

Or does do you favor the "they-stole-too-little" approach?

The fact that they didn't doesn't mean they couldn't. Their problem was no one was willing to risk jail time just to narrow a losing margin.

turning Ohio with so many eyes on them wasn't worth it. Karl thought it would be done though, and that's why he said it's too early to call it. they need to correct the problems with voting, because I still don't trust it can't be easily screwed over by those in charge of it.

It could be that Anonymous threatening to watch stopped some persons from changing vote counts along the line the counts pass.

It could be that the turnout was large enough that stealing it became more risky.

It could be that the combination with other efforts just didn't do enough.
(e.g., voter roll reductions, registrations dumped, wrong-date mailers, long lines in certain areas, poll watchers, ID requirements, citizen check-boxes, wrong information about felons losing voting rights, sell-out pundits, sell-out religious leaders, sell-out religions, sell-out organizations, the old optical reader thinks the circle is lower than it is on the paper trick, ... the list goes on and on.)

But, it doesn't matter does it, which of the reasons, or any combination of the reasons. The idea that they can and would manipulate the computerized voting is not proved and not disproved.

There is no reason to not have a transparent, verifiable voting system with paper receipts identifying all transactions. If you need a recount the paper and the electronic actions should match. Voters should each get a paper receipt showing how they voted.

The fact that the President won Ohio, does not mean that the machines were NOT rigged. You have to remember that they steal elections through thousands of little efforts. One bad machine in one precinct, voter purge in Florida, robo calls with the wrong date, billboards threatening minority voters with prison.

Just because he won, doesn't mean that there wasn't machine fraud. It could also mean that he won by so much, AND because the Dems run the Justice Dept and govt, we were able to oversee things and be on top of everything. How many provisional ballots had to be given out in Ohio?? That was also part of it...

That assumption would fail the "If all smaugs are thors, and all thors are thrains" question on an IQ test. It proves nothign.

I would imagine that the Justice Department's efforts to be "on top of everything" would have resulted in at least one alarming discovery or arrest regarding the voting machines. Any yet?

He's not. The entire vote-hacking conspiracy theory is nothing more than bullshit.

Without any proof.

In order to rig an election without it being detected, someone would have to rig each machine by only a very small amount to avoid any suspicious results, such as Romney significantly overperforming in Cuyahoga county. If the state went for Romney in a way that was inconsistent with pre-election polls and was out of whack with the national trend, it would raise suspicion. But it is possible to rig the machines to give just a little bit of a bump to a candidate without being detected.

The good news is, it does show that the amount that machine rigging can effect an election is minimal and would only make a difference in a very close election. On the other hand, Obama winning Ohio does not mean that the machines were not rigged at all. His margin there is surprisingly narrow compared to pre-election polls and compared to how other states that looked more competitive broke.

For example, the pre-election RCP average in New Hampshire was Obama +2, and he won by 5.8. In Iowa, the RCP average was O+2.4 and he won by 5.6. In neighboring Pennsylvania, the average was O+3.8 and he won by 5.2. Virginia was O+0.3 before the election; Obama won by 3. Nationally, Obama was +0.7 and his lead right now looks to be about 2.6.

In Ohio, by contrast, Obama won by 1.9% compared to a 2.9% lead in the RCP average.

Doesn't that seem a little odd? There are plenty of other plausible explanations, but I think it is definitely possible that there was some tampering that inflated Romney's numbers a little bit there and would have pushed him over the edge if the vote had been closer.

Propagandistic crap promulgated by assholes afraid of jail.

IMHO.

Get it right.

Bigger and more successful grifters than Palin ever dreamed of being.

I sue California for voting machines, it gets tossed, Obama wins. Either the fraudsters failed or theories are false. Logical, right?

doesn't prove there wasn't fraud. Let's get real, it's not like they weren't trying. We need to keep the spotlight on OH and FL unti they figure out how to run a proper election. People should not have to jump through hoops to vote and voting machines should not be screwed with right before an election.

Please up your game if you're going to join this rodeo.

They are as detached from reality as those in the GOP who were shocked when Romney lost.

Obama winning the election only proves Obama won the election. I'm not saying the machines are rigged or can be, because I don't know. What I do know is there is no reason we can't have a uniform system of voting that is verifiable. I also know that voting should not be the responsibility of partisans in either party. Clean it up, streamline it and make it uniform for everyone. A victory in this, or any other election should not prevent the people from demanding it.

Welcome to DU!

--It is not enough that elections be accurate; we have to know that they were accurate, and we don't.

Since it has been demonstrated many times that they are hackable, it follows that they will be (if not have been) hacked. If exit polls fall too far from the actual outcome, red flags will be raised, so there is an art to it. Still, to pretend that a vulnerable system won't be exploited would be naive.

No. I don't think so either.