Ineligible president elected by illegible voters

On a new twist in denying the results of the 2012 Presidential Election, Michael Savage says the Barack Obama was elected “illegal aliens,” so reports Orly Taitz on her blog.

Savage claims a background in epidemiology, but doesn’t actually do any analysis; he just says that the polls were wrong because they didn’t count illegals. There are two problems with that. First, most polls were right, and second it’s really hard for an undocumented person to register to vote lacking, uh, documentation.

It’s a theory designed to play well to right-wing prejudices,  attractive to those who fear undocumented persons and know that Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

BTW, I saw a cute cartoon yesterday. Two Indians were talking and one asks the other what a Pilgrim is. The other says “undocumented immigrant.”

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in 2012 Presidential Election, Election Conspiracies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Ineligible president elected by illegible voters

  1. Bob says:

    As was pointed out on this blog, two Republicans were arrested trying to prove how supposedly easy is to vote twice and nobody came forward saying they had done it and gotten away with it.

    Appropriate cartoon:

  2. Pastor Charmley says:

    Isn’t the whole point about illegal aliens being illegal that they can’t vote? Even legal aliens can’t! So the whole thing ends up back in absurdity, with a claim that election officials are corrupt and knowing letting illegal aliens impersonate voters. Because one cannot just turn up and vote, one has to say “I am so-and-so”, and Pedro would have trouble passing himself off as Peter McGrath unless the tellers at the polling station (apologies for English terminology) were in on it.

  3. “On a new twist in denying the results of the 2012 Presidential Election, Michael Savage says the Barack Obama was elected “illegal aliens…Savage claims a background in epidemiology, but doesn’t actually do any analysis”

    Michael Savage’s real name is Michael Alan Weiner, from the Bronx, New York. He has a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, in nutritional ethnomedicine.

  4. JPotter says:

    I have bothered to do the math, but it would be interesting to know what the minimum number of illegals it would have taken to provide the winning margin in the election. You know, the minimized combined margin of victory of states with enough electoral votes to provide the eventual electoral margin.


  5. JPotter says:

    Just started on the state-by-state data, I already see one large hurdle for this conspiracy theory. California, a state of 37.6M people (2011 est.), with 100% of precincts reporting, tabulated only 10.7M votes. Taking out a few million for the under-18 crowd, this seems to indicate low turnout for a Presidential election. Now, c’mon, we all know CA is loaded with illegals (*wink, wink*), where are the illegal votes of the illegals?

    Oh, wait, of course! California was the DNC’s arsenal! They shipped all of CA’s illegals to the battleground states!

  6. JPotter says:

    Well, numbers crunched. It would have required a minimum of 333,239 strategically-placed, illegal alien voters in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, and New Hampshire. That’s the smallest combination of states with the smallest MoV/EV that would have taken Obama down below 270 EVs.

    The DNC loaded NH up with Canucks? Right. Nevada is next on the list (combination requires 358.959), followed by Colorado (that takes 405,679). I think the illegals the wingnuts obsess over would more likely be found in either of those states.

    Of course, they’re really nutted up over PA. Obama carried PA by 287,865. This CT is getting more ‘expensive’ all the time. Dragging in PA would require 580,445.

    Of course, all these totals are minimums, and assume that the states would have been perfect ties w/o “illegal alien” votes. For the CT to make any sense, rMoney must have won those states if not for such votes, so any of these totals must be padded. Say, add 5% or so, which would give rMoney a squeaker win in each of these states. To avoid recounts would require a bigger pad …. producing the much-expected (teehee) rMoney landslide would require a minimum 100% increase. That’s around a million votes.

    Further, selecting the most efficient combination of states does an odd thing (albeit a common and necessary effect of CTs) … it assigns competence to the culprit, and serves as an admission of helplessness on the part of the CT nut. The DNC must have known ahead of time which states to load up. If not, then the margin in all the contested states must be looked at. Now we’re talking about millions of votes.

    Obama won his closest victories, 13 states with more that 50% to less than 55% of the vote, by a combined 2,049,593 votes. Are these all suspect? Add the required “rMoney landslide” pad, now we’re talking ~4 million votes.


    Looks at any part of the election results, and a clear correlation can be seen, which isn’t new. The split of the vote, and the degree of that split, is in direct proportion to the population density of the reporting precinct/county/state(/country?). For instance, rMoney carried Okilenad 76%/23%. It was, second only to Utah, rMoney most convincing win, when popular vote is index to electoral vote. However, even here, the margin of victory is directly tied to pop. density. Way out in Cimarron County (the end of the panhandle), which reported just over 1,000 votes, rMoney won with 91%. In Oklahoma County, home to OKC, rMoney won … by only 58%.

    There’s a clear lesson here: the RNC must become redistributionist! Not of money, but of people! To guarantee future electoral success, the Reds must depopulate the cities and enforce strict limits on the # of persons / sq. mi. The lower the better.

    If that doesn’t work …. you guessed it, the next pogrom—er, step, will be the a new idea called the “one-child policy”. It’s been tested in other markets … perhaps you’ve heard of it?

  7. JPotter says:

    JPotter: The DNC loaded NH up with Canucks?

    I realize I’m the only one rambling on in this thread, and now I am talking to myself. but there was one thing that seemed weird to me … New Hampshire was a ‘battleground’ state? ANd has a ‘free state’ movement going on? This struck me as odd because Vermont, not New Hampshire, used to be a republic. What happened to New Hampshire?

    Of course Obama didn’t win it with an influx of bussed-in Canadians. It has leaned more Red than its neighbors for a long time. But as far as becoming a ‘free state’ … it’s been the victim of a decade-long movement of self-described libertarians intent on hijacking a state! It’s the “Free State Project”…

    They’re drawn by the low-tax burden (not that they’re tax dodgers, mind), and limited gov’t (no seat belt laws! yay!)

    I’ve been trying to find reactions of local, long-term NH residents. How do they feel about this movement? Welcoming? Threatened?

    Scientist, any comments?

  8. Scientist says:

    JPotter: Scientist, any comments?

    I live in New York, not New Hampshire, so I don’t have much to say about it.

  9. JPotter says:

    Scientist: I live in New York, not New Hampshire, so I don’t have much to say about it.

    Well, thanks for the reply. You’ve previously shared some insights on goings on up northeast way. It’s an interesting development, but awfully presumptuous!

  10. Scientist: I live in New York, not New Hampshire, so I don’t have much to say about it.

    “How can I see anything – I live in the back.”
    “He left you the Picasso from the backroom.”

    [Borscht Belt routine]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.