Pressure Grows On Bloomberg: Make Up Your Mind, Already!
This has already gotten some attention, but we wanted to flag it anyway. Today's Times has a good piece on the backlash that's growing towards Mike Bloomberg's suggestions that he may run or may not run for President.
We wanted to point you towards this priceless quote from Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman, who is a Hillary supporter:
“I think it is becoming a very old story very fast. Mike Bloomberg has failed to make a case that he represents an independent movement, as opposed to a former Democratic liberal, former Republican, former Bush-backer running a campaign of opportunism.”
This really is the point. Bloomberg, who has criticized all the candidates for lacking policy specifics, has simply not said a darn thing that lets us place him in an ideological or policy sense. He is for "bipartisanship" in all its platitudinous glory, without telling us what policy ends he thinks should be accomplished with that bipartisanship.
Which raises another point: Bloomberg's condemnation of "partisanship" needs to be seen as an electoral strategy, rather than a governmental one. That's what he used to get around the Democratic Party in New York, and it's what he would use to get around the parties should he run for President. As Zimmerman says, this is all about opportunism, pure and simple.
The press doesn't have time or space to cover all those who ARE candidates. Why waste it on those who AREN'T.
January 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed. that's the other dimension to this. stop giving this guy attention already! jeez.
January 11, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, he's just another dead fish drawn across the trail to confuse everybody.
January 11, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's another Fred Thompson.
January 11, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, he's just another dead fish drawn across the trail to confuse everybody.
LOL!!!
And here I'm wondering if I'll have to savage his motives, impugne his integrity, and calculate upon his chances!
January 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you compare votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand: The percentages are exactly opposite and match to within .0001%. Optical Scan Clinton 91,717 52.9507% Obama 81,495 47.0493% Total 173,212 Hand Counted Clinton 20,889 47.0494% Obama 23,509 52.9506% Total 44,398
The percentages are exactly opposite and match to within .0001%.
January 11, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
kucinich is the only one who cares more about the country, than getting elected.
January 11, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
To kucinich for prez I'll write the smallest snippet of code for RND(%) flip, as a MCSD and as a function it will astound you. Kucinich is taking a very mathematically intelligent gamble and stands at the face analysis of this to gain..
That is a 1/1000 deviance what one 'would' expect from a computer, a very strong indicator of computer fraud.
January 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just Bipartisanshp®? Doesn't Bloomberg know that nothing really compliments Bipartisanshp® like a nice bottle of Change®? It's all the rage.
January 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, while I'm not sure whether or not they will find anything, I think there is enough cause there to do a recount, and I'm glad Kucinich is stepping up to the plate. He is someone who obvious cares about knowing the truth for Democracy's sake. Either way the outcome will be good because either A) we will learn once and for all that nothing was wrong and we can move on, or B) we can learn that Hillary somehow got helped by the machines and either nullify the result (if that significant) or at least make sure it doesn't happen again.
So thank you Dennis Kucinich!
January 11, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Super Tuesday is the decider. An Obama win means a Bloomberg endorsement. A Hillary win means a Bloomberg announcement.
January 11, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmmm...Sounds curiously like a Democratic candidate I've heard of...
January 11, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why, pray tell, should Bloomberg 'make up his mind, already' before he even knows what choices will be offered up by the two main parties?
January 11, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dim i
Dim z
For i = 1 To 173212
Dim x
x = Int((20 * Rnd) + 1)
If x = 20 Then z = z + 1
Next i
MsgBox z
funny how computers work..
I agree that the Diebold tabulation shows an interesting consistency
Remember folks there is noting Random on a computer, just 0's and 1's
I would say that this suggests a low level hack, that a professional would have better masked the array maipulations
January 11, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
after a cigarette I thought about how 'seeding' or 'salting' a hash is performed. If the hack was performed with the 'hand counted results as the key' then a computer 'would' generate these types of results, that is why despite the strongest encryptption, there are ways to beat it! Because computers are predictable and the only recourse is beating brute force with very large number sets.
I would say that it is more than interesting that the numbers are so precise.
It looks as if the seeding was done by the hand counted totals, which leads to the question, are those totals entered into the diebold tabulation system?
The answer each time, every time, is 8702 to the above script, not what one would expect from that range huh?
Funny how it works and leaves a distinct number trail for analysis
My bet is that Kucinich made an interesting move and stands a damn good chance of illustrating tabulation anomalies if the hand counted totals were indeed entered into the system as the baseline to win that election.
8702
8702
8702
8702
I reiterate computers are not random
January 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason that these flipped percentages are equal is because someone purposely made up some numbers that give you those percentages. Show an official source for these numbers of votes. I've seen now three different counts of how these votes supposedly break down being pushed on the net, and now finally someone invents this count. (Not to mention that you have to throw out the other candidates to even come close to these numbers.)
Plus think about this seriously. This hoax isn't even clever. Considering all the demographic differences and even just random chance, how likely is it that the people in machine counted precincts voted *exactly* the same to 5 decimal places as those in hand-counted precincts. Give me a break.
Someone is selling you on a whopper... and is banking on you being gullible enough to buy it.
January 11, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How could you seed the machine totals using the hand totals when both are being tabulated at the same time? How silly.
January 11, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd just like to say thanks to New Yorkers for giving us Rudy and now Bloomberg, ya bunch a mooks...
January 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Give it a rest
That is my point, everyone wins with a recount, either we discover malfeasance and someone (probably Hillary) goes down for it, or we don't, and all the theories floating around will go away. Either way it is a win-win for truth is it not? I don't see why it is worth fighting, it isn't your money and it isn't your time. If you support Hillary and are confident there was no cheating, then you should want a recount so critics can shut up about it.
I'm curious about the answer, I don't want this to be one of those "will we ever really know" things. I'm very glad Kucinich is willing to take accusations of possible voter fraud seriously.
January 11, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
@grover_rover
It doesn't bother me if Kucinich wants to pay for a recount to prove that the scanners worked. I'm just sick of the massive spamming of bogus crap on this site that "NH was stolen!" followed by numbers that someone pulled out of their a-- undisclosed location as if they were proof. This followed by self-described experts musing about how the fraud was accomplished without understanding anything about the vote count to begin with.
And, for the record, I'm not a Hillary supporter in any way, shape, or form. ;-)
And what the hell does any of this have to do with Bloomberg...?
January 11, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Give it a rest
Yeah lets see the theory poved incorrect.
And the hand counts entered into the system could have seeded the results, as a matter of fact that 'acounts for the statistical deviations' and is 'consistent with how computers work.'
Imagine the scenario where Clinton and supporters could wardance and laugh, "I told you so", or the alternative.
I have a feeling that these results will be analyzed, it is as if all the exit poll data, the statisical deviation, and the manner at which the results tallied suggest an inquiry.
Your line of argument reminds me of the Bhutto tape with the gunman, who you gonna believe, the narrative supplied, or your lying eyes?
I'm just pointing out that you would:
Need a seeding amount after initial counts were in to seed a fix, or set the paramaters.
That that seeded count would leave a variety of outcomes mathematically to acheive the desired result of a win based upon those seeded entries.
And finally based on seeded entries that a statistical range of possibilities would occur based upon how computers operated.
And oddly enough the results seem to mirror the suggesion that the above could have occured.
One last casual observation, if you know the seed, and the outcome, then the function is derived, or said another way.. if you know the seed then encryption is worthless.
The reversed results, are interesting if it is known that the majority of the voting can be altered.
January 11, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Bloomberg enter the race?
What if the presidential election comes down to Clinton vs McCain. Clinton has said she will begin pulling troops out of Iraq and is too smart to wage war against Iran. McCain on the other hand is a Bush clone who would bomb Iran without hesitation and stated this week that it would be fine with him if US forces stayed in Iraq for the next thousand years. Who would Israel like to have as our next president? A hawk or a dove. The answer is a hawk.
Enter Israel's favorite son.. Mike Bloomberg. He, Bloomberg, would surely take votes away from Hillary in the general election, throwing the election to McCain, who, as I stated earlier, would continue to wage war against all of Israel's, real or imagined, enemies.
January 11, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
GKU writes: Super Tuesday is the decider. An Obama win means a Bloomberg endorsement. A Hillary win means a Bloomberg announcement.
BINGO.
January 11, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
BIpartisianship? He'll be an independent, neither a D or R. Won't he need TRIpartisianship? The truth about independent campaigns, however, is that everyone doesn't suddenly unite when he's elected. He'd probably get only one party to work with him on most items, so will he pick the R's, who will be in the minority, with dim prospects for the future, or the D's, who are on the ascendence and want to repair the damage done by Bush? The answer, of course, is neither. He's got as much chance of winning as America's Playa, Rudy G. The Dems would have to work at it to blow this one.
January 12, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink