9 votes

The primary results are oddly consistent

Here is another blog i wrote after doing some analysis. I don't know that it is proof of anything, but I think there is something strange going on. Romney only had 2% of Texas vote in 2008, but had over 60% IN 2012?


As a note the only reason i'm not copying and pasting is I'm part of the Paul SEO team. Doug has setup a team to help get out the good news of Ron Paul. Specifically right now the youtube video of what happened in Louisiana.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Im in DFW

And I am dumbfounded by Mitt taking 70%.

I haven't seen one Mitt bumper sticker or lawn sign. I know of no one professing they voted for Mitt, or even support him. Santorum, Paul, and even Bachman (still) are pretty big here.

At our District convention, only one person was "brave" enough to even mention his name in a speech/etc.

Paul backed Cruz forced a run off for National Senate.

Tea Party is big here, which I don't think particularly jives with Mitt.

Locally, Paul supporters and ultra conservatives took over key positions.

At the state level in my area, Paul supporters and ultra conservatives also took primary wins.

All republicans were still on the ballot, so I would have guessed Santorum, Paul, Bachman, hell even Perry, would have taken MUCH more then 30% combined.

Paper votes were counted electronically, or you could opt for computer voting.

election fraud proof electronic voting machines


This is all that needs to be said on the matter...all the caucus shenanigans are an addition. They can't have that huge disparity and disconnect where PAUL takes all caucus states and ROMNEY takes all Primaries, so they need to defraud us in the caucuses as well. It has worked about 50%, the other times we overwhelm them.

Ron Paul has the majority, he has had the majority before we even started this thing. I kept on telling everyone we need to reform the voting system if we are to have a chance otherwise we are just playing along in their rigged system, it's a demoralizing system, it must change if the American people are to regain their country back.

Like to raise a question:

Like to raise a question: (guitarshred on 5/30)

Is it my imagination or are most if not all the states holding primaries at the end of the election cycle using voting machines?
If this is the case, seems like a perfect way to counter a rising candidate they don't want to let win.

I have another question:
How long did it take to tally up the votes? did it take as long as if they were counting a paper ballot? Because counting paper ballots is very time consuming whereas machines just give you a final total so arguably all results should be there when the voting times close, did this occur?


1. all Final states to vote = electronic. That can't be an accident. 2. Electronic voting.. seems that results would be real time, up to the nano second. But no, they're delayed. For what reason... Well, hey.. maybe it's so Karl Rove and the 2 "front runners" can discuss it and decide on a number they both can agree with.

This # is hugely glaring

Paul 2008 - 25%
Paul 2012 - 14.3%

He also "did" worse in SD and New Mexico.

he got 400 votes in 2008

and 20,000 votes in 2012.

Romney had already dropped out when Texas had their '08 primary

and I THINK McCain may have already been crowned nominee...will have to get back to you on that one...

ok if thats true

Then explain to me why newt and rick get suck great turnouts since they're gone? Also, explain to me that in 2012 the variance between number of votes Mitt gets is so close?

mail in votes...

My parents mailed in months before FL. when they thought Gingrich was the man.

Ben Swann

I wish he would do a RealityCheck on the vote flipping scenario...even show parts of the "hacking democracy" video.

You have to factor in the

You have to factor in the bandwagon effect


Yes because

of htat is fine, but I can't believe Paul loses his own county that he was elected by for 22 years.

tasmlab's picture

Baffling - it's not like he's changed

I think he took over 70% of the votes in his last House election.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

but the job description...

the opponents, and the circumstances changed a very significant amount. Winning a heavily Republican district as an incumbent is completely different from winning a Presidential Primary against a strong contender who everyone besides Ron Paul supporters believes has already won.

Don't forget about this math.

Don't forget about this math. It's 100% conclusive beyond any shadow of a doubt. The votes WERE flipped in at least some of the states. http://www.dailypaul.com/220841/proof-of-election-fraud-algo...

I wouldn't doubt it

but I wanted to put things side by side. It doesn't add up if anything mitt has become less popular.. How are people so blind?

Yes, circumstantially,

Yes, circumstantially, nothing makes sense, but I wanted to post that link because it's the kind of hard evidence we need to blow this open.

Take Texas. DOUBLE the voter turnout, all to vote for someone who LOST MISERABLY 4 years ago? In his opponent's HOME STATE where he had provided free/absurdly cheap healthcare to thousands of families? And delivered hundreds of babies? And had multiple reports of primaries being Paul-dominant, yet somehow Romney comes out on top in a landslide? No.