QUESTIONING THE NUMBERS IN WISCONSIN - Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.

[Ellipsis]

"Achieving 90% turnout is highly unlikely. It would require
near record participation on both sides, not one, and that is simply not the narrative we are hearing. Either these voter turnout percentages, consistently very high, all across the state, are an historic achievement, unparalleled in my experience, or the numbers are not true and correct. We need to find out. Luckily, Wisconsin is a paper ballot state."

http://bradblog.com/Docs/QUESTIONING%20THE%20NUMBERS%20IN%20WISCONSIN%20-%20RichardHayesPhillips%20112716.pdf

[ffr]

1. Diving into the numbers

Jump to PDF page 5 and page 5 conclusion (see second <snip> below). However, temper your enthusiasm by my comment at the bottom.

Overview 11/27/16

Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin by 27,159 votes, or 0.885% of 3,068,434 ballots cast, according to unofficial results. The count was 1,410,027 for Trump, 1,382,868 for Clinton. (The "unofficial results" generally do not include absentee
and provisional ballots; after these are counted, the "official results" are certified).

Compared to the 2012 presidential election, the Democratic presidential candidate lost ground in all but 4 of 72 counties: Dane, Ozaukee, Washington, Waukesha.

Statewide, Clinton in 2016 got 238,117 fewer votes than Obama in 2012, a loss of 14.69%. Trump got 2,061 more votes than Romney, a gain of 0.15%. The Democratic vote was down by 20% in 46 of 72 counties.
<snip>

It is said that Trump was elected because he was better able to turn out his supporters than was Hillary Clinton. The Republican base as more enthusiastic about Trump than for McCain or Romney, all across rural America, and the Democratic base was less enthusiastic about Clinton than for Obama, especially in urban black neighborhoods.

Wisconsin is as good a place as any to test this hypothesis.
<snip>

Achieving 95% turnout is almost impossible. If more than 5% of the registered voters have died or moved away since the last purging of the voter rolls, 95% turnout is mathematically impossible to achieve. Even with election day registration, there would have to be about as many first-time voters as the number that fail to show up at the polls.
<snip>

Achieving 90% turnout is highly unlikely. It would require near-record participation on both sides, not one, and that is simply not the narrative we are hearing. Either these voter turnout percentages, consistently very high, all across the state, are an historic achievement, unparalleled in my experience, or the numbers are not true and correct. We need to find out. Luckily, Wisconsin is a paper ballot state. - PDF by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. - Source link Veterans Today

I cannot comment on Wisconsin voter turnout, but to use Nevada's 2012 to 2016 vote results as an indicator, HRC did lose the rural vote more so than PBO and by outrageous margins...and Donald's numbers did outperform Romney's. However, voter turnout in rural counties ranged between 66% - 93% and 76% statewide overall. http://nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=4567

Statewide HRC received more votes than did PBO (2012 v 2016), but then so too did Trump compared to Romney. She got about 9,000 more votes, while Donald got about 49,000 more votes than their predecessors respectively.

IMO, the question becomes did HRC actually get a huge drop in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, traditionally blue states. And if so, why didn't those lower Dem turnouts appear in Nevada? After all, Donald's team was campaigning in Nevada, home of Cliven Bundy, as hard here as any other state. Did he campaign that much more in those other states and those other states' rural voters are more Bundy-like than the official Bundy state's rural voters? Or are Mr. Phillips' conclusions point to what will eventually prove to be some form of election fraud?

[INdemo]

3. The DU hack probably played a bigger roll than what we could imagine..

Across the country there are thousands of well informed DU members and were watching every exit poll being reported. With DU hacked and down those /members weren't able to throw up red flags early via Democratic Underground and thereby allowing the election fraud to continue without any resistance..Is that a pretty good sumation or am I way off base..

Where in the hell were these experts from the Clinton Campaign that surely should ahve seen something going down using the exit polling as a barometer>.

What Im saying together DU members from all the battle ground states could have recognized tat something was terribly wrong and with that many observations perhaps could have reported that our election was in the process of being hyjacked

As we all know though it was not by accident

Russia,The FBI ?

[ffr]

4. I think some of those "smart" people on her team might have been overrated.

And, like you, I don't think the DU hack isn't inconsistent with what appears to be a stolen election. That or it's just a coincidence with seemingly distinct ties to a stolen election, one that we thought might be hacked coincidentally, in much the same way.

But, yeah, we're probably not correct in assuming the two are related.

[INdemo]

5. So then you would agree that the Obama team was much more superior

than the Clinton team...i thank so.

[ffr]

6. In some ways, yes.

I think it is the fault of anyone seeking office to define themselves on more positions than not, because the more people know about your positions, the more people you are likely to offend. I always thought that strange in HRC's case. But then, I also thought her tact was refreshing. She was up front and honest about what she thought and how she was going to accomplish her ideas. But instead of refreshingly honest, America appears to have rewarded the abhorrently dishonest candidate.

HRC wrote a book about it that both she and her VP pick went about using to illustrate all of her positions on issues.

Whereas, Donald just had a few racist positions. He turned off a lot of voters, but we all know Rs are going to vote for whatever turd R candidate is brought forth. Not so for Ds. They need someone who they can support. A few too many may have been turned off. There were a lot of positions for enough to peel off on.

Did you feel PBO's campaign was better?

[byronius]

8. I have to say the nature of the DU hack immediately spelled stolen election.

'God Emperors' don't like democracy. The gun in the face, all the subtext -- yes, it's an insane worldview and a childish video, but it was coupled with an incredibly effective and well-thought-out attack against an underrated but incredibly effective election information processor -- Democratic Underground.

It was my first thought. I believe they thought they could demoralize us entirely. I also think there has been a well-funded, well-coordinated attempt to damage the dialogue that has blossomed over the last year.

I believe this really did happen. And I believe it's related to the hack of the DNC, the attempted hacks on a large number of state election servers and other various federal agencies, and the mysterious Trump/Russian bank server connection.

Part of the problem with Russians and/or American homegrown racists/supremacists -- they like to wave their dicks around. They can't help it. Part of their worldview. It's a signature.

Gotta say, if this all breaks, Greens get a big seat at the table. It would be fair.

[world wide wally]

11. Speaking of the DU hack

Did all of you get that picture of Trump in a car with a gun?

[TheFrenchRazor]

15. absolutely; it prevented people from having a place to go to share information on election "irreg

irregularities."

[INdemo]

2. So jut thinkng with the recounts is it

possible that Russ Feingold...I think that with Scott Walker anything or anyway to cheat is within his realm.Same goes for the criminal in Michigan.

I still don't understand how Walker pulled off a win in the recall election

[ahlnord]

7. Walker and Priebus know how to do it

Roger Stone has been quoted in The Hill as saying that Scott Walker and Reince Priebus know how to steal an election and have done so 5 times: http://www.wpr.org/former-trump-advisor-scott-walker-has-rigged-5-elections

[C Moon]

9. Damn! These people are scary! It's starting to sound like they know we found their hiding place

but we haven't.
Something big may be coming soon.
I hope.

[DallasNE]

10. Two Odd Numbers

How can there be these exceptional turnout numbers and Trump getting only 1,000 more votes than Romney. I then focused on two Counties: Milwaukee then Waukesha. (From the charts.
Clinton Trump Total Obama Romney Total
288,986 126,091 415,077 332,438 154,924 487,362
79,199 142,519 221,718 78,779 162,798 241,577

These numbers would not include any 3rd party candidates.

Milwaukee - Clinton/Trump down 72,285 from Obama/Romney
Waukesha - Clinton/Trump down 19,859 from Obama/Romney
Total 2-county Clinton/Trump down 92,144 from Obama/Romney

Total ballots cast Milwaukee 444,108 minus 415,077 equal 29,031
Total ballots cast Waukesha 233,269 minus 221,718 equal 11,551

Does 29,031 sound reasonable for 3rd party + over + under for Milwaukee or are there some uncounted ballots there, possibly provisional.

The Clinton/Trump total down from Obama/Romney could point to how successful Voter ID suppression really was in these two largest Counties. Trump was down by 49,112 but was up by 50,000 in the other 70 Counties combined. Clinton was down by 43,032 from Obama so she came out of here 6,000 votes to the good. Statistically speaking there are some anomalies' here.

[world wide wally]

12. We are like bullied children.

We keep getting cheated and act like we don't know WTF to do about it.
Where is the power of the Presidency? The power of the Democratic party.

People think they have power (and usually can pull some strings) if they know one Senator or Congressman.

WTF?

[Hekate]

13. KnR

[TheFrenchRazor]

14. ah...bradblog...takes me back... anyway, is he saying there was 90% turnout in WI? seriously? nt