I Wonder What The Chance Nate Silver Would Assign To This

Here are some mind blowing numbers:

It’s one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.

“We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic,” said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. “It’s kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia.”

Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats.

Cities are not only bursting with Democrats: They are easier to organize than rural areas where people live far apart from one another, said Sasha Issenberg, author of The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.

“One reason Democrats can maximize votes in Philadelphia is that it’s very easy to knock on every door,” Issenberg said.

Still, was there not one contrarian voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?

The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods – clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia – fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.

For the record, voter ID laws wouldn’t have an impact here.  If there is fraud, it’s being perpetuated on another level.

18 responses to “I Wonder What The Chance Nate Silver Would Assign To This

  1. Getting 99 % of a vote anywhere is Fidel Castro territory . Not that anyone cares .

    • Getting 99 % of a vote anywhere is Fidel Castro territory .

      He got 100%.

      Not that anyone cares .

      This administration is “racist.”

  2. If it’s fraud they’d have a few Romney votes just in case someone said “but I voted there for Romney.” I suspect these are small precincts in overwhelmingly minority neighborhoods.

  3. This would be a slam dunk case of fraud if someone in those districts came out and said they voted for Romney, as Scott says. Find one person in those precincts who says he voted for Romney, and you’ve got a good reason to start investigating.

    I did election protection in west philly in 2004. I got to know the various partisan people who were campaigning outside, though there were no GOP representatives at all. In the district that we were monitoring, it turned out there was exactly 1 registered Republican in the precinct. Everyone knew who he was, too, a elderly gentleman who seemed to be practically blind. I was interested in seeing what would happen when he showed up; those democratic party representatives met him at the sidewalk and helped him up the stairs to go in and vote.

    That’s a long anecdote that is largely unrelated to the larger point: it is very very easy to find 100% Democratic precincts in towns that are largely black, largely segregated, and largely democratic. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there were entire voting areas in west virginia or wyoming that had 0 votes for Obama.

    • Find one person in those precincts who says he voted for Romney, and you’ve got a good reason to start investigating.

      This is 100% for Obama. 19,000+ votes.

      I find it unbelievable.

  4. Nickgb ,

    I dare you to back up what you say . Just to prove us knuckle draggers wrong, I hope you can . There are too many convenient votes that show up when they are needed . 19,605 to 0 is probably statistically impossible . Human beings are notoriously difficult to control with out extraordinary measures . One would think that even in a homogeneous area there would be a hundred free thinkers who would vote against the grain just for spite .

    So please find a comparable area that went 100 % for Gov. Romney . It would make the next 4 years more bearable .

    • probably statistically impossible

      I don’t need to prove you wrong when you use phrases like this. I just laugh at you and move on. Is it impossible? Probably impossible? Improbable? Statistically any of those? Figure out what you mean before typing, Alan, and it’ll be easier to take you seriously.

      As for the larger point, the homogeneity of these precincts DOES bother me. I do think it’s a little weird and bears a little investigation. But as I said before, if they can find a single Romney voter in those precincts, that’s really damning evidence. I’m not saying they won’t find one, and if they do they really do need to investigate. But they haven’t found one yet, which makes this a numerical anomaly and NOT evidence of fraud. If they really wanted to commit fraud and not get caught, by the way, they’ve include a handful of GOP votes at each polling place so that you couldn’t simply find that one Romney voter and prove tampering.

      But also as I said, I have no difficulty believing that, improbable though it is, that it’s possible. Unlikely yes, impossible no. I’d like someone to take a closer look at it, but I’m not willing to take the numbers themselves as proof of misdeeds without a little more investigation. That’s where Pino and I diverge.

      If you look into it a little more, in fact, 14 of those precincts cast no votes for McCain in 2008 and, given the importance of voter ID laws in driving voter turnout among black voters this year, I’m not that surprised that the number of no-GOP precincts increased.

      So, it’s improbable but certainly not impossible. The source story itself noted that these districts have no GOP voters in them and, among the voters registered as GOP, it appears to be in error.

  5. Nothing compares to inner city urban areas. The burden of proof is on people who claim fraud. It should be easy – find in any of those precincts one person who claims to have voted for Romney and look into that. You can’t prove a negative (you can’t prove there wasn’t fraud), so those claiming fraud have to provide proof. I’d be willing to take evidence seriously – any fraud is serious. But inner city Philly… you never know. But I’m sure if there were Romney voters, they’ll come forward.

    • The burden of proof is on people who claim fraud. It should be easy – find in any of those precincts one person who claims to have voted for Romney and look into that.

      Nah, I’m not really concerned about fraud. I’m SURE that’s going on; Black Panthers and all. What’s really fascinating is the sheer improbability of it.

      • What’s really fascinating is the sheer improbability of it.

        Or maybe, just maybe, the party that labels black america as lazy takers does really badly in urban black neighborhoods. The party that raises taxes on the middle class while giving tax breaks to millionaires does poorly in poor districts. The party that has a proven track record of trying to disenfranchise minority voters has a hard time winning over people at most one generation removed for segregation.

        Nah, that can’t be it, it HAS to be fraud.

        • Nah, that can’t be it, it HAS to be fraud.

          I get the overwhelming support for Obama in specific and democrats in general among poor, urban and black districts. I’m sure that those neighborhoods break overwhelmingly for the President. Fraud or no fraud.

          But 100%? I ain’t buyin’.

          Or maybe, just maybe, the party that labels black america as lazy takers does really badly in urban black neighborhoods.

          So, I’ve never been to those areas in Philly, but you mention they are poor. It would be interesting to compare the unemployment to open job positions. And then to compare entitlement benefits as a percentage of all take home income.

          The party that raises taxes on the middle class while giving tax breaks to millionaires does poorly in poor districts.

          We;ve discussed this in our conversation regarding the difference between debt and deficit and how the average American doesn’t know the difference. Or doesn’t care when the terms are used interchangeably. Hell, even NOTICES when they are.

          I’m gonna go out on a limb here and predict that 95% of the folks living in those districts couldn’t expound on tax rates and how they are different between the middle class and the very wealthy.

          The party that has a proven track record of trying to disenfranchise minority voters has a hard time winning over people at most one generation removed for segregation.

          Here is where I think you are spot on. Something to consider. In the event the republican party is able to effectively change their platform and/or message to the tune of 5-10% representing a 10-20% turn-around; the democrats are in trouble.

          • But 100%? I ain’t buyin’.
            Did you read the article? These are precincts that have less than a handful of registered GOP voters. You don’t think it’s at all possible that, with such a horrible candidate and in the face of a sure defeat, those people didn’t bother leaving their houses? It’s a shame if they didn’t, but right now it looks that way. Again, I’m not saying there was definitely no shenanigans, but this is hardly proof. Find a Romney voter who says he voted in that precinct and then you’ve got a case. I’m sure James O’Keefe is already out there knocking on doors (which I’d applaud if I trusted him not to make stuff up). If the GOP wants to go out there and knock on doors in those precincts to make sure votes were counted, then I’m happy to see that.

            Your point about the unemployment and job positions is simply another way of saying you think these people are lazy. It’s a point you have raised over and over again. Regardless of its merit, which is close to nil, it has nothing to do with the fact that these are people who would probably be pretty incensed that Romney insulted “the 47%.” It’s a perfectly good explanation for why any potential Romney voters in these precincts would be soured.

            I entirely disagree with you that 95% of these voters wouldn’t know the difference between Obama and Romney on tax issues. They may not get the difference between debt and deficit, like most Americans, but the message that Romney would hurt the middle class in favor of the wealthy is simply clear as day. Every voter out there knew it. And it is yet another reason why you might see 0 votes for Romney in these neighborhoods.

            As for your last point, I suppose it depends on what you mean by the various numbers you’ve thrown in there. What is the 5-10%? What is the 10-20% turnaround? Right now it looks like you mean that they should change their platform by 5%-10% and could capture 10-20% of the vote share that way. I find it hard to argue, because I don’t know how would would adjust Norquist’s pledge “5-10%”, or gay marriage “5-10%”, or the like. I am assuming I’m misreading your point and just need clarification.

          • Did you read the article? These are precincts that have less than a handful of registered GOP voters. You don’t think it’s at all possible that, with such a horrible candidate and in the face of a sure defeat, those people didn’t bother leaving their houses?

            I did.

            All I’m saying is that 19,000+ votes – unanimous – is remarkable.

            Your point about the unemployment and job positions is simply another way of saying you think these people are lazy.

            Or are provided the wrong incentives.

            these are people who would probably be pretty incensed that Romney insulted “the 47%.”

            Nickgb, if this neighborhood is as you describe, I’m betting they don’t even know that Romney made the “47%” comment. Now, to be sure, there are republican voters who are equally clueless. People are remarkably without a hint of what’s going on. But listen to Stern’s show:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

            I entirely disagree with you that 95% of these voters wouldn’t know the difference between Obama and Romney on tax issues.

            What percentage of folks in this precinct would be able to discuss tax policy?

            As for your last point, I suppose it depends on what you mean by the various numbers you’ve thrown in there. What is the 5-10%? What is the 10-20% turnaround?

            So this time the black vote went to Obama 93-4. That’s an 89 point difference.

            If the republicans can get 5 points of that it goes to 88-9. A 79 point difference.

            However they change their platform to get that 5 points is yet to be discovered.

          • All I’m saying is that 19,000+ votes – unanimous – is remarkable.

            Yes, it is absolutely remarkable and deserved to be examined closer to make sure it was legit. It has been looked at closer and SURPRISE, these are districts where it could theoretically happen. So, unless there is more evidence, we can’t call it fraud.

            What percentage of folks in this precinct would be able to discuss tax policy?
            What relevance does this have? Does someone need to understand the nuances of fiscal policy to understand that one tax plan hurts them and another helps them? Or are you just mad that people who never took classes in government finance are still allowed to vote?

            Or are provided the wrong incentives.
            So? How is that relevant to the fact that these people are simply more likely to vote for Obama because of their economic situation?

            However they change their platform to get that 5 points is yet to be discovered.
            Yeah, and Democrats will be able to dominate the entire country for centuries if we can adopt policies that help poor people while also comforting racist white men. But it’s hard to do that because, well, a house divided against itself and all that.

            The GOP can’t simply change their platform, even for easy stuff like gay marriage, because they’ll lose their christian right flank and they’ll fall apart. They’ve built a coalition on the Southern Strategy which helped them win for fifty years and now is an albatross.

          • Yes, it is absolutely remarkable and deserved to be examined closer to make sure it was legit. It has been looked at closer and SURPRISE, these are districts where it could theoretically happen. So, unless there is more evidence, we can’t call it fraud.

            Megyn Kelly and you are sympatico……

            What relevance does this have? Does someone need to understand the nuances of fiscal policy to understand that one tax plan hurts them and another helps them?

            Nickgb, there are significant portions of the population that haven’t a clue regarding ANY of the policies. And if the population of these districts are as poor as you mention, I would suggest that the folks don’t pay taxes. How would the tax conversation that Romney was having hurt them?

            Or are you just mad that people who never took classes in government finance are still allowed to vote?

            Or are you just mad that people who never took classes in government finance are still allowed to vote?

            Jeez.

            So? How is that relevant to the fact that these people are simply more likely to vote for Obama because of their economic situation?

            Ahh, now we get to it. You mean people react rationally to incentives? RR just posted, and I’m on my way to discuss it, about this. Apparently people are all a flutter concerning the statement Romney made that would suggest people vote for a candidate who offers them a better economic “package.”

            And here you are, suggesting the very same thing.

            Yeah, and Democrats will be able to dominate the entire country for centuries if we can adopt policies that help poor people while also comforting racist white men.

            What in the hell are you talking about? I don’t get this continual reference to racism. And by the way, this is the exact use of the word that I refereed to months back. The common usage today has changed the meaning of the word to the point that we should almost literally, change the definition in the dictionaries.

            They’ve built a coalition on the Southern Strategy which helped them win for fifty years and now is an albatross.

            Albatross? I don’t know. They’ve lost two elections to a pop culture machine. Hardly evidence to turn off the lights.

            It’s clear the planks have to change and the messaging has to change. When one demographic breaks 93-2 for the other guy, something is clearly wrong. And it isn’t isolated to just that black vote, Hispanic and Asians broke for Obama, what, 73-22?

            I don’t know what mix of policy and messaging has to change. I don’t know how much of it is simple outreach. All I know is that there is a proper mix of the two and the repubs better figure it out.

            One reason why I think it will continue to take a long time. Consider North Carolina. We just elected the republican to the governor’s house. In 2010 we elected a majority republican to the state house and state senate; first time since before the Civil War. And now they EXTENDED those majorities with the governor’s house too. The majorities are so large the republicans can put Constitution amendments on the ballot without a single democrat.

            AND we voted for Romney.

            If I go to the NCGOP and suggest they change their platform or message they’re gonna tell me to fuck off. They don’t see that if the republican party changes in a way and manner that would allow Hispanics to come back to their natural home, the conservative party, California would vote republican.

  6. Nickgb ,

    ” I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there were entire voting areas in west virginia or wyoming that had 0 votes for Obama. ”

    I’m not surprised you can’t back up what you say . Maybe you could also find voting districts where Democratic Party poll watchers were thrown out like it is being reported that Republican poll watchers were evicted from polls in Philly . How do you watch for voter fraud when the people monitoring the polls get tossed out ?

    When you combine the fishy numbers with the GOP watchers being tossed out of polling places, something really stinks . But hey you guys won so who cares now .

    It’s a real shame Obama can’t run anymore . If he could I wonder if he could do even better than 100 %.

    • Alan, I don’t have to “back it up”. For one thing, I didn’t say there were any, I just said it wouldn’t surprise me much. For another, it’s irrelevant to the Philly issue; if I dug those precincts up it wouldn’t disprove anything and you would still be saying it’s fraud.

      Kicking the poll watchers out was a douchey thing to do. I wonder if we’ve heard the whole story, though. Either way, there’s not a single allegation of fraud by any voter, at all, just a ridiculously strong Obama vote. Why aren’t these disenfranchised Romneyites talking, Alan? Why are they hiding? Is it because of the black helicopters?

  7. Nickgb ,

    ” Why aren’t these disenfranchised Romneyites talking, Alan? Why are they hiding? Is it because of the black helicopters?”

    🙂 Maybe it is the scary guys standing in front of the polls in their paramilitary uniforms . Tell me why that was necessary ? I bet our esteemed Attorney General would have pursued them had they white sheets on . You guys were the ones who made the argument that photo ID was voter suppression. That is pretty freakin funny now, doncha think ?

    Politics has become as corrupt as bicycle racing . What ever you got to do to win is okay . Sometimes they take away your yellow jerseys many years later . Probably not if you only win two .

Leave a Reply to Nickgb Cancel reply

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