"The Dems and Dirty Tricks" - Election Night 2008

Remember back in February when WikiLeaks released emails from Stratfor, also known as Strategic Forecasting, a “leader in business intelligence and geopolitics?  While the emails released didn’t have the same “bang for the buck” as the State Department release, there were a few interesting emails, among them, the subject of tonight’s posting.  While I posted on this back in February, I thought that since we are on the eve of the 2012 election, it was time to revisit what happened behind the scenes on November 7, 2008.

As background, Stratfor is a Texas-based global intelligence corporation founded in 1996.  Stratfor provides its subcribers, often Fortune 500 companies, with a wide range of research on international affairs.  They have their own intelligence network for the gathering of data which is then evaluated by their in-house analysts.  Here is their own video explained their raison d’etre:

Now, let’s get down to the reason for this posting.  In searching through WikiLeaks, I found these two emails, the first entitled "Insight - McCain #5" dated November 5, 2008 and the second entitled "Insight - The Dems and Dirty Tricks" dated November 7, 2008 of particular interest.  Both emails were flagged as **Internal Use Only - Do Not Forward**.  You'll see why.

The author of both emails, burton@stratfor.com, could well be Fred Burton, Stratfor's Vice President for Intelligence, a former special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service among other things. 

Let's start with the second email, complete with typos, to put the first one into context.  The second email opens by stating that:

"1.) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of hte election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight.  The matter is not dead inside the party.  It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to "out".

2.) It appears that the Dems "made a donation" to Rev. Jesse...to keep his yap shut after his diatribe about the Jews and Israel.  A little bird told me that it was a "nice six-figure donation".  This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.

3.) The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers.  A smoking gun has already been found.  Will get more on this when the time is right.  My source was too giddy to continue.  Can you say Clinton and ChiCom funny money?..."

For your information, the word "ChiCom" generally refers to Chinese Communist.

The recipient of the email, howerton@stratfor.com, responded by stating that

"...The Dems quit pretending and admitted to themselves that to win it you have to get off your high horse and play dirty when you have to.  And they won."

 Now, let's look at the second email.

"After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio, despite his staff's desire to make it an issue....Staff felt that they could get a federal injunction to stop the process.  McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence."

"Curiously, there are whispers of McCain being set up by the Cheney/Bush crowd, because McCain was never liked by either...My guy said Rove and company want to bring in someone they can control the next go around.  McCain was not controllable.  Jeb Bush's name is being discussed...". (my bold)

To summarize, the evening of the 2008 federal election, John McCain was urged by his aides to contest the results of the election by seeking a court injunction to prevent the voting results in both Ohio and Pennsylvania from being certified.  All I can think is thank goodness that John McCain had the strength of character to just say "no" when it counted.  I also found it quite interesting that, according to Mr. Burton, Karl Rove et al did not like John McCain because he was "not controllable".  What does that say about George W. Bush?  What does it say about Mitt Romney?

Let’s take a look back four years at the results of the 2008 election to see what might have changed if Senator McCain had succumbed to the wishes of his handlers and contested the vote in both Ohio and Pennsylvania.  First, nationally, Barak Obama received 365 electoral votes and his share of the popular vote was 69,456,897.  John McCain received 173 electoral votes and his share of the popular vote was 59,934,814.  Ohio had 20 electoral votes in 2008 and 52 percent of voters chose the Democrats giving Obama all 20 electoral votes.  Pennsylvania had 21 electoral votes in 2008 and 55 percent of voters chose the Democrats giving Obama all 21 electoral votes.  If John McCain had won all 41 electoral votes from both Ohio and Pennsylvania, his total would have risen to 214 and President Obama's total would have dropped to 324, making the end result exactly the same as it turned out to be with an Obama victory.  If John McCain had elected to contest the election, it would have solved nothing other than perhaps creating unnecessary national chaos, especially in light of the kerfuffle after the 2000 election.

With all of this in mind, it will be interesting to see if there is a repeat of these accusations in the 2012 presidential election cycle, unfortunately, we’ll likely never know what goes on within the confines of Stratfor.  One thing that is becoming apparent is that, sooner or later, like developing nations around the world, we’ll soon require independent confirmation of clean voting at every voting location in America. 

A History of Voting and Not Voting

Updated November 7, 2012

As the American election is finally over, I wanted to post on an issue that is of particular importance to democracy; voter turnout.  One of the tenets of democracy is the right of individuals to vote for their chosen political party or candidate and, when people choose to stay at home rather than vote, it speaks volumes about the state of our political system.

Let's open by looking at voter turnout at every presidential election held in the United States since 1828 noting that for the 2012 election, I have used a preliminary turnout number of 54.2 percent (112.63 million votes cast out of 207.643 million eligible voters):

Now, let's look at voter turnout at Canada's federal elections since Confederation in 1867:

Lastly, let's look at voter turnout at the United Kingdom's national elections since 1832:

Voter turnout in the United States peaked at 81.8 percent in 1876 and stayed above or very close to the 70 percent mark until the 1904 election.  Over the period between 1828 and 2008, voter turnout at American federal elections has averaged 63.9 percent, hitting a peak of 81.8 percent in 1876 and a low of 48.9 percent in 1924.  The graph shows a rather precipitous drop in voter turnout as the 19th century turned into the 20th century, hitting a low of 48.9 percent in 1924.  You can see that during the 20th century, voting levels have never returned to the levels experienced in the previous century, hitting a high of only 63.3 percent in 1952.  In the last two decades, voter turnout at the last five elections has averaged only 53.8 percent, down 17.9 percentage points from an average of 71.6 percent over the same five election years one century earlier when most voters walked, rode horses or took horse-drawn carriages to vote.  Notice as well that, in the latest election cycle for all three nations, the American turnout lags Canada's by 6.9 percentage points and the United Kingdom's by 10.9 percentage points or 20.1 percent!

By comparison to the average American voter turnout of 63.7 percent since 1828, Canadian voter turnout has averaged 70.7 percent since 1867 and United Kingdom voter turnout has averaged 71.9 percent since 1832.  Canada's voter turnout peaked at 79.4 percent in 1958 and hit a low of 58.8 percent in 2008.  While many pundits blamed the drop on "voter burnout" because this was the third election in just over four years, in fact, Canada has a history of holding multiple elections over very short periods of time, in fact, between 1962 and 1968, four elections were held with voter turnout ranging from 74.8 percent to 79.2 percent.  The United Kingdom's voter turnout peaked at a whopping 86.8 percent in 1910 and fell to a modern-day low of 59.4 percent in 2001.  The United Kingdom has seen voter turnout drop in its last three elections held in 2001, 2005 and 2010, however, elections held during the period from 1922 to 1997 all had turnout rates better than 70 percent, well above both Canada and the United States.

In the 2008 United States federal election, a total of 186,983,927 American voters were registered and there were 212,720,027 eligible voters in total.  The number of registered voters was up 6.9 percent from just two years earlier.    According to the FEC, President Obama received 69,498,516 votes (52.93 percent of the popular vote) and John McCain received 59,948,323 votes (45.65 percent of the popular vote).  This means that, of the total eligible voters, the current president received only 32.7 percent of potential votes compared to only 28.2 percent for his opponent.  To compare, in Canada's 2011 election, there were 24,257,592 electors listed; of these, Canada's current Prime Minister received a total of 5,835,270 votes or a meagre 24.1 percent of the total potential votes.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines democracy as:

1.) government by the people especially the rule of the majority.

2.) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. (my bold)

These voter turnout statistics show that voters are increasingly choosing not to exercise their right to vote.  This is not surprising given that politicians are their own worst enemies resulting in an increasingly cynical public.  Politicians today seek to divide us and, by dividing us, they conquer us.  While at least some of them enter public service with the best of intentions, they are quite quickly absorbed by the "Borg" (resistance is futile, you will be assimilated) that is the political system today.  What we, as voters, must do is hold them to a higher standard.  All jurisdictions must implement a legislative recall initiative as is currently in place in British Columbia where a populist movement saw the tossing out of a very unpopular tax grab.  Eighteen states through the United States also have recall legislation for state officials, unfortunately, at the federal level, no such provision exists; in the case of the United States, the Constitution does not provide or authorize the recall of Senators, Representatives, the President or Vice President.  My suspicion is, that until such legislation is imposed, voters will becoming more and more cynical about democracy and the value of voting, resulting in power being held in the hands of fewer and fewer elites.

Campaign 2012 - One For the Record Books

A recent report by the Center for Responsive Politics suggests that this will be, by a relatively wide margin, the most expensive overall election in U.S. history.  According to CRP's analysis of Federal Election Commission data, the 2012 election is expected to cost....wait for it....$6 billion.

The biggest and most obvious difference in this cycle, other than the country's growing political polarization, is the amount of money being raised by outside and supposedly independent organizations that, while they are not managed by a specific candidate, are in existence to help a chosen candidate in their election bid.  These groups are expected to spend more than $970 million.

Surprisingly, spending on the presidential election is down from 2008, dropping by $200 million to $2.6 billion.  This spending can be broken down into three parts:

1.) $2 billion will be spent by the candidates and the major party committees.

2.) $528 million will be spent by outside organizations in their desperate attempts to sway voters.

3.) $142 million was spent on the fun and games held at the RNC and the DNC conventions held in August and September.  Apparently, placards and balloons can really add up!

Spending on Congressional races is expected to rise modestly with total spending on House and Senate races rising by only $100 million from 2010, hitting $1.82 billion.  House spending will rise by 3 percent to $1.1 billion and Senate spending will actually fall by 7 percent to $743 million.  The lion's share of spending increases for Congressional seats is mainly among Republican candidates because of the large numbers elected in 2010.  Outside spending on the 59 House contests that are deemed close or leaning to one party or the other for one week alone in mid-October totalled $41 million.

All Congressional candidates in total have raised more than $1.7 billion with average incumbents raising $1.5 million compared to only $245,000 for their challengers.  Candidates that are funding their own campaigns have spent a total of more than $200 million of their own money to "win the prize".  In the Senate, incumbents raised an average of $11 million over their six-year term compared to only $1.2 million for those who are challenging them. 

In both the House and the Senate, Republican candidates have raised more than the Democrats in this cycle, averaging $712,000 to $594,000.  Overall, this means that Republicans look set to raise 55 percent of all money raised by congressional candidates, reaching a total of $1.1 billion.

Let's take a look at outside spending.  Spending by outside groups has grown from a paltry $19 million per week in early September to a frantic pace of $70 million per week in the week of October 21.  American Crossroads and its non-profit counterpart, Crossroads GPS (Karl Rove's babies) together report spending more than $158 million on this election.  Mitt Romney's supporting Super PAC Restore our Future has spent nearly $125 million.  President Obama's supporting Super PAC Priorities USA Action reports that it has spent a total of $67 million.

Let's take a brief look at the sharp contrast in the approach taken to raising funds by the two presidential candidates.  Thus far, President Obama's campaign has received donations from many, many small donations which have totalled over $214 million out of a total of $632 million as shown here:

In sharp contrast, the Romney campaign, while raising far less, has only raised $71 million out of a total of $385 million from small donors as shown here:

While small donors still play an important overall role in U.S. elections, it is the changes to laws that allow individual donors to donate unlimited funds to outside organizations, particularly nonprofits, that has greatly impacted fundraising during this election cycle.  For example, while it took fewer than 40 donors to raise the $200 million received by outside organizations, it took over 350,000 small donors to raise the $71 million in small donations raised by the Romney campaign.

The Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has been a game-changer for American politics.  With the advent of powerful and politically biased outside organizations, campaign fundraising has never been so opaque, nor has it been so tempting for America's wealthy ruling class to use their money to buy both politicians and ultimately, policy.  If, as it would appear, money is paramount in the American political process, then the cards are held by very, very few, very, very wealthy Americans.

Voting for Jesus in 2012

Here's an oldie but a goodie from Fox News and Bill O'Reilly:

Just in case you wondered who Bill Keller is, he's a Florida-based televangelist who founded the Live Prayer website, the world's first global prayer meeting with over 2.4 million subscribers.   While he has a strong anti-homosexual agenda, he also feels that homosexuality is no more of a sin than gluttony and says the following about overeaters:

"I mean, Christians who think they're holier than thou think nothing about going to church, then after church going down to, you know, the Cracker Barrel, eating 8,000 calories worth of garbage and wobbling out in their big fat stomachs…if you start preaching about gluttony, half the people are going to walk out. The other half that's there, half of them can't walk out because they're too big. And they're certainly not going to put $10 in the basket whenever it's passed."

Ah yes, the all important $10 in the basket!  Whatever would all of those televangelists do without all of those $10 bills?

Keller has set up a website urging Christians to cast a write-in ballot for Jesus Christ in 2012.  According to his Vote for Jesus website, he has nearly 1.6 million people that have committed to write in Jesus' name on their ballot for the following reasons:

1.) President Obama has proven by his words and deeds to be a true enemy of God as detailed in James 4:4. He has been the most pro-death President in history, supporting the legalized slaughter of innocent babies here and around the world, he is a staunch advocate of the radical homosexual agenda, and he has been a great friend to the enemies of Israel. On every major spiritual issue of the day, President Obama has proven to be an enemy of God and a true tool of Satan!

2.) Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a 5th generation member and a priest in the satanically inspired Mormon cult. He and others in his cult LIE when they claim to be Christians, since Mormon doctrine is 100% inconsistent with Biblical Christianity and a Mormon is no more a Christian than a Muslim is. He deceives people by saying he believes in "God" and "Jesus" is his savior, when the "god" of Romney's cult is NOT the God of the Bible, and their "jesus" is NOT the Jesus of the Bible. Romney and those in his cult believe the Bible to be a flawed and incomplete book and look at Biblical Christians as inferior and non-believers for rejecting the beliefs of their cult.

Apparently, unlike many other Evangelical Americans, Mr. Keller does not view Governor Romney as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  He is plainly and simply the enemy.

Now, I ask you, why would you vote for the Democratic or Republican Satan when you can cast your vote for Jesus and cut out the middleman?