More Vote-Rigging for Hillary in MS

Here we go again.
Obama won 60.8% of the recorded vote.

But 25% of Clinton's voters were Republican ditto-heads who followed Rush Limbaugh's advice to vote for Hillary.

If Republicans were excluded from voting, Obama would have had 65%.


Final Exit Poll (matched to the vote)
1667 respondents
[code]
Party-ID
Mix HRC Obama
Dem 71 30 67
Rep 12 75 25
Ind 17 43 57
Total 100 37.6 60.3

Let's assume that only Democrats and Independents were allowed to vote.

Mix HRC Obama
Dem 80 30 67
Rep 0 75 25
Ind 20 43 57
Total 100 32.6 65.0


At 10 pm Obama led the exit poll by 56-41%.
Very strange.

1667 respondents
Mix HRC Obama
Dem 71 33 64
Rep 13 78 22
Ind 16 48 48
Total 100 41.3 56.0

I'm not sure if you'll find this plausible or tinfoilish, but I'm quite astounded at how this ended up in the opposite direction of where the exit polls rested. How do you end up with a final total more than 10% above the exit poll? By fraud, of course. But IN FAVOR of Obama? How is that possible when he has no control over who counts the votes? Because of who does control it.

I'm in the middle of a fascinating book set in the near future titled The Shell Game by Steve Alten. While the main characters in the book are fictional, the political backdrop of Peak Oil and false flag terrorist operations provides a setting where fictional politicians interact with real politicians. In this setting, the 2008 general election was won by a fictional Republican, though his last name, McKuin, sounds oddly familiar. The following exchange on page 133-134 is between Ace Futrell, a petroleum engineer and Jennifer Wienner, a former GOP political strategist, regarding the upcoming 2012 primaries:

(Ace Futrell) "What if one of the candidates, say, this Senator Mulligan, based his campaign on a radical plan to replace fossil fuels. Before you say no, imagine an economy based on clean energy. No dependence on the Middle East, no more war on terror. Eliminate oil from the equation, and you eliminate 90 percent of the causes for them hating the West. Think about how many Americans have died in Iraq."

(Jennifer Wienner) "Doesn't matter."

"Of course it matters. The public hates the war."

Jennifer shrugs. "Okay, Ace, if that's true, how did McKuin, a Republican, get elected after eight years of Bush and Cheney? By your logic, the Dems should have swept the 2008 elections just like they did in 2006. Didn't happen. Know why? Money and the Republican Media Message Machine."

"What? Limbaugh and those cable news stations?"

"They're part of it, yes. You begin with the message, something you can sell. Doesn't matter if it's true. Then you spend a billion dollars in ads hammering it into the American psyche. There were two major democratic challengers in '08, Hillary and Obama. Rove and his merry men fueled their attacks against one another in the primaries like the Reagan administration fueled the Iranians against the Iraqis in the 1980s. Divide and conquer - a brilliant play - and the blood between the two camps grew so bad that there was no way the Dems could heal the rift. The machine creates the message, the money fuels the media, and the media pounds it home every day until your mind subconsciously associates message with candidate. It's the Pavlov dog syndrome: ring the same bell over and over, and the swing voters eventually salivate."

Ace shakes his head. "So substance means nothing."

"Correct. Perceived substance, however, means everything. Take the invasion. Rove's primary mantra, besides WMDs, was that Iraqi oil would pay for the entire cost of the war. Andrew Natsios, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, actually appeared on Nightline saying that invading Iraq would cost the American taxpayers a maximum of $1.7 billion. That same message and dollar amount was repeated, over and over, until even Congress believed it. Here we are, ten years later, and we just passed a trillion dollars in spending! Billions in cash were redirected to Sunni insurgent groups, Al-Qaeda among them. Who's accountable? Maintain power and the answer is no one. As long as you control the White House, even the worst indictments get washed clean through a presidential pardon."

This cautionary tale was published in 2007, but three months into this year we have yet to heed it's prescient warning. While the book doesn't specifically refer to election fraud, the fact that we have this Hillary up, Obama down/Hillary down, Obama up seesaw back and forth playing into the hands of the same Republicans who count the votes makes me believe what happened with these exit polls not matching the final results in any way, shape or form was no accident.

But I don't get MS. Unless the early polls were infiltrated by Repubs.

[code]
Final EP (matched to the vote)
1667 resp

Party-ID
Mix HRC Obama
Dem 71 30 67
Rep 12 75 25
Ind 17 43 57
Total 100 37.6 60.3


But what if HRC got 25% of her vote from Repubs?

Party-ID
Mix HRC Obama
Dem 74 30 67
Rep 9 75 25
Ind 17 43 57
100 36.3 61.5


Rep%
HRC Dem % of Vote
71 74 77
Obama share
75 60.3 61.5 62.8
60 62.1 62.9 63.7
50 63.3 63.8 64.3