Why does Trump claim that only Democrats commit voter fraud—including in pre-election polls?
Donald Trump again raised the specter of election fraud Friday, saying that the only way he would lose Pennsylvania is to Hillary Clinton is if “they cheat.”
The Republican nominee, speaking at a rally in Altoona, Pennsylvania, repeated his concerns about the fairness of the election.
“The only way we can lose, in my opinion — I really mean this, Pennsylvania is if cheating goes on and we have to call up law enforcement and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everyone watching because if we get cheated out of this election, if we get cheated out of a win in Pennsylvania, which is such a vital state especially when I know what is happening here,” he said. “She can’t beat what’s happening here. The only way they can beat it in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, if in certain sections of the state they cheat.”
— Trump: Clinton will only win Pennsylvania if ‘they cheat’‘, Tyler Pager, Politico, yesterday
One ongoing source of amusement for me in all the discussion of voter-ID statutes and such is the tacit claim that Democrats commit vote fraud but Republicans don’t.
Trump these days, though, does that claim one better. He alleges that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents commit polling-vote fraud. On a massive scale, no less. And, of course, that Republicans don’t.
Every recent poll of Pennsylvania voters—and there have been several—has Clinton up in that state by 11 to 14 points; the gap grows slightly with each new poll, if I recall correctly.
What I think Trump confuses with majority voter support for him may be a flight-industry statistic from back in 1991-92 showing the number of passengers who traveled between eastern seaboard cities on any of the profitable airlines that flew those routes back then versus the number of passengers who flew on his shuttle. The latter number includes those whose transportation costs were paid to the airline as well as those who traveled for free as a courtesy from Trump, although those respective numbers appear to be the same. But that wouldn’t cause the confusion, probably.
This is just speculation, of course.
“He alleges that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents commit polling-vote fraud.”
I couldn’t find where Trump said that. In fact, the statement appears to me to be too sophisticated for him.
If you’re going to steal an election, it’s extremely helpful to manage what is being reported. Pre-election polls are Step 1. If three of your own crooked polls report Ohio is +3% Red, an honest poll reporting +5% Blue can be dismissed as an outlier.
Step two is the actual theft – Ohio surprises and goes +4% Red. Nothing to discuss here, the thing simply has to be done professionally by your hackers.
Step three is to stifle the exit polls. It doesn’t look good if most of the people leaving say they voted Blue. The best situation is not to have any at all. If that can’t be managed, I’d say you need at least one more reporting the opposite of the honest one. To muddy the water into He Said/She Said.
You only need to steal an election if you’re not going to win otherwise. IMO Hillary’s people won’t need to bother unless they’re aiming for a total sweep of both houses of Congress. If they manage that, they can do anything they please for the next two years.
Recall that Obama had both houses of Congress in 2008, and what HE chose to do was basically nothing any good as the “progressive” he had pretended to be. Since he was actually a Reagan Republican in all but name, that’s understandable.
Hillary will be more like Bush, I think. If she gets that kind of chance, it’s Katie-Bar-The-Door. I expect I’ll look for my Civil Defense gear and see if it still works. Especially the radiation counters.
I see this as a dog whistle to his rabid followers to initiate a bit of voter intimidation in “….certain sections of the state.”
Watching the machinations of the death of empire is fun, isn’t it?
What would the world be like without private finance? I think as a species that it is in our best long term interests to try to end this stultification of humanity.
The Donald has bet the house that the same methods – large rallies, outright lies, dog whistles — that won him the primaries will win him the general. He doesn’t need to raise money, doesn’t need to create political structures in the states – he is sure just being The Donald will carry him to victory: “I alone!” If “I alone” fails, it must be someone else’s fault — the media, pollsters, etc.
The Democrats never speak of voter fraud because it doesn’t exist. The Republicans have used voter fraud to exclude blacks from voting. It’s the same dynamic we saw at work in the privatization of schools – starve public schools of adequate funding, then point out how they are “failing.” It is fascinating from a psychological point of view: The Republicans must create the illusion of voter fraud to justify their own electoral fraud – or in The Donald’s case, to make excuses for his own electoral catastrophe. Sociopaths always blame others, never accept responsibility for their own actions.
Dreaming of winning with a candidate that rallies would not fill a small room or where at the democratic convention almost half of the attendees were there to vote against Hillary.
Is it any wonder Hillary do not do rallies.
Hillary only has the corrupt media to help her by misrepresenting what her challenger Trump that has no problem holding larger rally centers.
correction to the last sentence of my post.
Hillary only has the corrupt media to help her by misrepresenting what her challenger Trump. who has no problem filling large rally centers.
You don’t win elections through large rallies. You win elections by votes.
The “corrupt media” doesn’t need any help in discrediting Trump — he does it for himself, day after day after day. It’s hard to call digital recordings of his own words in his own voice a “corrupt media” at work.
To have believed in Trump in the first place was delusional. No sense crying about it now.
I’m not complaining about Trump, just saying when it comes to voters few show up for Hillary rallies.
Hillary had problems rallying the troops at the democratic convention. Then there ‘res the new investigation of Hillary and the Clinton foundations pay for play.
Pollsters and talking heads will be proven wrong in November.
“Hillary had problems rallying the troops at the democratic convention. ”
You obviously watched a different convention than I did. And you obviously read different poll data than the rest of us.
What color is the sky in your world, Beene?
Clinton did indeed have trouble rallying a good percentage of Sanders delegates, throughout the convention, to just not protest or do anything embarrassing to Clinton.
Wow. Not sure what convention you or Beene watched, but neither of you watched the one I watched.
Joel, Hillary was so afraid of the 46% of the delegates at the democratic convention; a floor vote was not permitted.
There was such a hole in the number of delegates that left after the floor vote was canceled that the DNC had to fill the seats with paid sitters.
Joe, polls are wrong almost as much as there right. Will give you the polls do not favor Trump at this time.
Seems you were wearing the colored glass while watching the DNC convention.
Beene, there was a floor vote at the convention. By the time Vermont was called, Clinton already had secured the votes needed for the nomination, so Bernie asked the Vermont delegation to move that it be unanimous. It did, and another state’s delegation–I can’t remember which one–seconded it, and the floor vote ended.
LOL! Is that the only part of the convention you watched, Beene? I may have been wearing colored glasses, but at least I wasn’t wearing a blindfold.
“Joe [sic], polls are wrong almost as much as there [sic] right.”
Actually, the Princeton Election Consortium has been spot on in the past two presidential elections. It has had Trump losing in November by a wide margin. I see no reason for that to change.
Yeah, it would have been a smart move to allow ridiculously stupid people to make more noise when the nomination had already been decided.
” “To the Bernie or bust people, you’re being ridiculous”.
Sarah Silverman
Won’t be long now before the Green Lanterns are a greater danger to the progressive movement than racists. If that moment has not already been reached.
Joel, this election is about change; only two candidates represented change and the good one was destroyed by the DNC. That only leaves one that represents any chance of change.
Beene,
You should not talk about the DNC affecting primary results until you understand that thee DNC has almost no control over state primaries. Never has. The only control they have is penalizing states for not following minimum guidelines they have created(FL and MI in 2008).
They have no influence at all in the primary schedules in most states(REP) and can only suggest schedules in other states(DEM). My favorite berniebro complaint was the early primaries held throughout the South, and the advantage that gave Clinton. The only NC that had any control of those schedules was possibly the RNC. And they have very little to do with that other than suggestions.
The DNC has no control over open or closed primaries; nor do they have control over states adopting caucuses. Though they do have some greater amount of control over caucuses versus primaries, it is not a big deal.
BTW,
Sanders won 86% of the caucuses.
Do not waste our time talking about things you have no knowledge.
EMichael, we were not discussing caucuses. We were addressing the DNC convention delegates which was 46% that represented Bernie..
As too the caucuses, it was only after loosing several that Hillary had a change of heart about trade deals; from pro trade to against trade.
“That only leaves one that represents any chance of change.”
That probably sounded better in the original German.
WikiLeaks Emails Show DNC Worked Against Bernie Sanders
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/22/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-colluded-bernie-sanders/
HILLARY CLINTON MAY HAVE CONSPIRED WITH THE DNC TO ENGINEER MEDIA BLACKOUT OF BERNIE SANDERS, LEAKED DOCUMENTS SUGGEST
More……….. http://www.inquisitr.com/3215224/hillary-clinton-may-have-conspired-with-the-dnc-to-engineer-media-blackout-of-bernie-sanders-leaked-documents-suggest/
Beene,
This is what you said, “only two candidates represented change and the good one was destroyed by the DNC”, then you followed it up with that Breitbart thing. Nothing there about caucuses.
You are convinced the DNC stole the election from Sanders. That is toal, absolute nonsense and has been proven so. Yet you persist, and when cuaght you change the subjecf(but not really).
You should read more than the headlines. One email between a couple of people that talked about an action. No action was taken. Absolutely, positively nothing. Course, by the date of that email the primary was over.
This morning I saw a Google Headline I still don’t quite understand.
“Evan McMullin’s presidential run could potentially blow up the Republican Party”
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/14/evan-mcmullins-presidential-run-could-potentially-blow-up-the-republican-party/
It seems that this fellow I’d never ever heard about is running for President as an independent. Of course he doesn’t have a chance to win, but there is a possibility he might throw some deep Red Western states to Hillary! He is ex-CIA and Goldman Sachs, so he probably won’t suffer for money.
Are the Republicans and the folks who fund them determined to throw the election to Hillary? It’s surely a possibility
*** A growing number of Americans are coming to the realization that Trump is more than just a political train wreck; he’s a real threat to the nation, what with the fear of nuclear weapons and the sweeping power of the federal government in his tiny paws.
Those of us who believe, who know, that Trump is dangerous can’t just settle for him being beaten in November. We need to ensure that he is on the business end of a decisive, humiliating defeat — so that the terribly divisive forces he has unleashed are delivered a death blow. ***
If that’s the case Hillary truly will run amok for the first two years.
Getting back to the vote fraud issue – this would make it plausible that Republicans who would hold their noses and vote for HRC also went whole-hog and voted in a Democratic Congress rather than splitting their ballots. This kind of election tampering probably wouldn’t even be suspected, let alone investigated.
If both Trump and the Republican Leadership are both playing to lose, next year is going to be mighty ugly.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/rick-wilson-beat-trump-drum-article-1.2739979
My understanding is the McMullin is running in order to bring anti-Trump Republicans to the polls so they’ll vote for downballot GOP.
Yes, that’s exactly right. Although Clinton’s doing that, too, by campaigning so actively for the votes of Republicans who might otherwise just not vote at all. These are Republicans who already had decided not to vote for Trump.
“A growing number of Americans are coming to the realization that Trump is more than just a political train wreck . . .”
Actually, train wrecks are stopping to gawk at the GOP presidential campaign.
To Joel August 14, 2016 12:57 pm
It’s my belief that Goldman Sachs is much more interested in getting the TPP than in ‘protecting’ Republican politicians. And the CIA desperately wants Hillary too – to protect and expand it’s own projects around the world. Especially in Syria.
The really crazy Republicans would reflexively vote against anything Hillary proposed. It’s much safer to have reliable hacks who will jump when Queen Hillary yells “frog!?
With the small populations in the Western states a miniscule amount of tinkering with the no-verify touch-screen computer voting machines could change some important elections.
Umm,
I am not aware of voting machines being on a single network in any state. I thought that all of them are connected only with each other in a single polling place.
Makes tinkering really, really hard.
Zachary, Trump didn’t say “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents commit polling-vote fraud,” or some similar phrasing. And you’re right that since it would require a two-step deductive thought process, which Trump isn’t capable of, the necessary conclusion–that if a candidate is way behind in every one of several polls, nationally or in a particular state, there’s no apparent conceivable basis for that candidate to believe or say that if he loses, the reason is voter fraud–can be based only on one of two things: that polling respondents are lying en masse to every pollster who is polling there, or every pollster, including presumably Trump’s own pollster–are lying about their polling results.
So, yeah, way too sophisticated for him for him to realize that that is what he’s saying. But that is what he’s saying.
To Beverly Mann August 14, 2016 2:57 pm
Pollsters can tinker with their results if they wish, but as you say, this is unlikely to the extreme when every single poll report says the same thing.
My current guess is that Trump is throwing paper sacks of BS at the fan, and will continue to do so to cover for his popularity dropping like an iron anchor.. To an outside observer his frantic efforts resemble the work of one-legged cat in a sandbox.
After Trump got the nomination, the Presidency was his if he wanted it. (Such was the popularity of Hillary.) It turned out he doesn’t want it, so we’re going to be welcoming President Hillary and all that entails.
“After Trump got the nomination, the Presidency was his if he wanted it.”
LOL! Nah, even then he was unelectable.
I am suprised a that so many commenters leave out the elephant in the root — the fact that by standards of Nuremberg trials Hillary Clinton is a war criminal.
http://www.voterninja.com/es/uncategorized/hillary-clinton-is-a-war-criminal/
=== quote ===
Excerpts from a Blog by Roland Vincent
“Using the standard announced by the justices at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals in World War II, Hillary Clinton is a war criminal
Justice Robert Jackson’s opening statement to the court is as applicable now as then
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please Your Honors:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Jackson.html
Hillary Clinton is certainly not the only one, but she is the only one running for president.
Equally credible cases can be made against W, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld.
Each supported an illegal war in which thousands of American lives were sacrificed for Big Oil, and in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered.
Each subscribes to belligerent, interventionist military policy. Each supports an American Empire foreign policy.
Each supports arming the world. Each supports Israel’s occupation and war against the Palestinian people.
Each supports regime change, by force or stealth, where such will benefit US corporate or military interests. Even at the expense of democratically elected governments.
== end of quote ===
How can any intelligent person vote for a war criminal ?
Oh no, not another HRC the criminal posts. War criminal in this case. Email fraud previously. Failure of duty in Libya. Oh, remember Vincent Foster. Murder no less. Trump is a sociopath and HRC has her delusional detractors. What good do they do? Well they draw attention away from HRC’s real worst traits. I’ll briefly sum up the case by noting again Hillary Clinton, like Bill before her, is a creation of the former Democratic Leadership Council. When the Republicans started their journey to the far right the DLC captured the right of center people. That’s the moderate Republican base. That was the answer to the southern strategy. Keep some social progressiveness. Remember GBW’s compassionate Republicanism? We’re going to get a Republican President, but we’re going to make believe that she’s a progressive Democrat.
All the definitions have changed since the ’60s. She not a criminal. She’s just put on a different colored cloak to demonstrate her flexibility. Americans are apparently not yet ready for a good old fashioned New Deal Democrat. Workers are afraid of unions. Americans never could stay out of a good fight. And Democrats since the ’70s have learned to love bankers and recgnize that if you let bankers have yet more money they’ll shed some your way. Roosevelt didn’t need their cash. He had his family’s banking empire. And he had real compassion. He was an old style Keynesian. He understood the importance of the government spending money on the nation, and that the nation would return that money to the wealthy as they spent it to stay alive.
Bingo.
To likbez August 14, 2016 5:44 pm
I agree that Hillary Clinton is many kinds of criminal. I also agree with the others that it no longer matters in the US.
Nixon = unprosecuted treason.
Reagan = unprosecuted treason.
Bush Sr. = unprosecuted criminal in Iran Contra and more.
(Clinton 1 is a black hole for me in terms of information – I just don’t know enough to say.)
Bush Jr. = unprosecuted torturer and war crimes in Iraq.
Obama = unprosecuted drone killer and war crimes in Libya & Syria.
That’s the Leaders. On down the ladder US policemen routinely kill people. Many are cold-blooded executions. Very seldom is there any prosecution. Even rarer than that is a conviction.
Big Bankers plundered the US in 2008. Not a single prosecution that I know about.
Big Carbon Fuels is destroying the Planet Earth. No politician of note has done a thing about this. Probably because an extraordinarily ignorant and arrogant US population doesn’t care. Or worse, welcomes the End Of The World.
US citizens are becoming numbed to violence by the sheer frequency frequency. And increasingly have their noses in their handheld devices tuning out all the news. Having learned almost no history, they’re suckers for nearly any glib line from very talented propagandists.
A very nasty piece of work is about to become President of the US of A. She has done many things for which better humans than her are in prison. If the email hackers produce actual evidence of actual crimes, she will NOT be prosecuted. At the very worst the TPP-loving Neocon Kaine will become president.
This is the US in 2016.
Jack,
You are absolutely right that Hillary is a moderate Republican in a sheep skin of Democrat. That was Bill Clinton “Third Way” strategy from the very beginning. Essentially selling the Party to Wall Street. This “neoliberalization” of Democratic Party worked extremely well for Democratic brass for almost three decades.
You are probably wrong in your underestimation of the danger of the “new American militarism” (Professor Bacevich coined the term) factor in the US foreign policy — the desire to subdue all other countries and establish global neoliberal empire. Which as Zachary Smith observed makes each and every President since Clinton a war criminal, unless we adopt the Roman dictum “Winners are never sent to the court of law”.
Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace
Bacevich scored a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state with this scathing critique, and demolishes the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the United States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive of perpetual war for perpetual peace.
These assumptions clearly visible in “Khan gambit” are as following: has the unique responsibility to intervene wherever it wants, for whatever purpose it wants, by whatever means it wants — and the supporting “trinity” of requirements for the U.S. to maintain a global military presence, to configure its military forces for global power projection, and to counter threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism.
The driving force in all recent wars is the desire to protect and enlarge the neoliberal empire. That means that election of Hillary means war and voting for her means voting for war. As simple as that.
Its’ amazing that we are a nation of laws only when the political elite seem threaten, or their pimps.
Bev,
Any Republican that is saying they are not going to vote for Trump will already be sure they are going to the polls and voting Rep right down the line.
These are the non-stupid part of the GOP.
BTW,
This presidential criminal talk is enlightening. I could put in FDR, Truman and even Lincoln and make a case also, though I wouldn’t dream of it.
I commented a little while ago about Trump blue collar supporters have a history of very low election turnout.
My brother in Atlanta said the rednecks are not even registered and many do not know that in almost every state they have to register before election day.
I would find it the supreme irony if these Trump voters were turned away at the polls because of the voter restrictions the republican state legislators have imposed over the past years.
And you know what they would do next, Spencer? Start screaming at the top of their lungs how the election is rigged — “what do you mean I’ve got to register!” — and, at least for the “Second Amendment” folks, they’d go home and get their guns, waiting for the message from The Donald.
>This presidential criminal talk is enlightening. I could put in FDR, Truman and even Lincoln and make a case also, though I wouldn’t dream of it.
Nuremberg trials were a series of 13 trials carried out in Nuremberg, Germany, between 1945 and 1949. So the standard is applicable only from late 1949 or 1950.
If you are really interested I would recommend the book
Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton
This book provides the background of Hillary’s meddling in Libya, Yugoslavia, Bosnia (running in gunfire, indeed), Honduras and let’s not forget Iraq.
Here is one review:
By J. Alan Bock on January 5, 2016
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
In 1961 President Eisenhower warned about the rise of a Military Industrial Complex (MIC) – an elite consensus that, in effect, turned the United States decisively away from its New Deal social programs to endless military buildup justified by grossly exaggerating the Communist threat.
Since the administration of Lyndon Johnson no president has been able to defy this consensus and today the War Party (MIC) is firmly in control of the 2 party political system.
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s policies of supporting the Afghan surge, intervention in Libya, the Iraq War, and sending arms to the Syrian rebels, among others, have made her the top salesperson for the War Party. She wholeheartedly backs Israel and has demonized Vladimir Putin, likening him to Adolph Hitler. This is likely to lead to war which could be nuclear. She is, indeed, the “Queen of Chaos.”
But Hillary Clinton is far from being the whole problem. The fundamental problem is the War Party which is firmly in control of the two party system. Reality suggests that the Republicans will nominate a candidate who makes Hillary look good (take a look at the current crop of GOP candidates led by Donald Trump!)
The only thing that can liberate Americans from their warlike fiction is economic collapse. This is not a cheerful prospect. Whatever the odds, one cannot help wishing that the American people will come to their senses and figure out a way to end this policy of war.. This happy ending is theoretically possible, but looks extremely unlikely because of the American political system.
To likbez August 15, 2016
There is a new essay at Consortium News which describes the issue we’re talking about.
It’s worth a look.
to Zachary Smith August 15, 2016 3:26 pm
Thank you.
This term “Normalized Deviance” reminds me Dixon’s study of military incompetence which deepened the traditional observation that peacetime armies and wartime armies prefer (and promote) very different types of officers. Actually it is sycophants and “yes men” who are promoted at peace time, especially “kiss up, kick down” type.
They gradually pervert the organization and when war strikes commit blunders.
The same process occurs within three letter agencies, which degenerate into propaganda arms of White House. Some observers claims that this process started at full force in CIA under Bush I and State Department under Clinton.