As voters head to the polls in a dozen Super Tuesday states, we cover a number of the problems voters are already reportedly facing on today’s BradCast, as well as how Donald Trump or Ted Cruz could actually help save democracy — and our public airwaves — by filing some lawsuits! [Link to audio for full show is posted below.]
First up today: The 866-OUR-VOTE Election Protection hotline is reporting a number of problems at polling places around the country so far today, particularly in states that were once covered by Section 5 of the (now-gutted) Voting Rights Act. Problem reports as of this afternoon include long lines at some precincts caused by failing electronic poll book systems, state voter registration and polling location databases being offline and confusion over new Photo ID voting restrictions.
Moreover, as expected, there is trouble once again with touch-screen voting systems in a number of states. Democrats in at least one Georgia precinct were given Republican ballots when they went to vote on their 100% unverifiable voting machines and, in Williamson County, TX, north of Austin, voters are reporting unverifiable touch-screen votes flipping from one candidate to another — from Trump to Rubio (or someone else) in the cases reported so far.
As usual, here is our friendly reminder that many problems with voting systems, and the results they produce, do not come to light until well after Election Day. So, we will continue to keep our eyes on these issues, as ever. (And here are a few tips from 2014 on what to do about such probs should they happen to you today or in the upcoming primaries!)
Then, we’re joined by award-winning journalist and media activist Sue Wilson of the Media Action Center to discuss her new article on how Ted Cruz or Donald Trump could actually help save democracy — and the fight for facts over our public airwaves — by filing lawsuits against broadcast outlets that air false propaganda ads purchased by third-party SuperPACs.
“In terms of the rules that television and radio stations have to follow, a candidate is, in essence, free to lie to the public as much as they can get away with, as long as it’s one of their own ads, as opposed to the ads that are paid for by these murky third parties,” Wilson explains. “But, if you’re one of these third parties that’s running an ad for a candidate, the TV stations are not required to take those ads at all. And if those ads are found to be false, yes, the candidate has standing to sue, and say, ‘I’m going to hold you liable for these false ads that you’re making a fortune running and you’re not fact-checking.'”
She also goes on to explain how the public can take action as well here, since “we, the voters, are the people who really suffer the most from these ads that flatly lie about candidates and their issues,” while, ironically, “you, and I, and everyone else, own the publicly-owned airwaves, but somehow don’t have standing to sue radio stations and TV stations if they lie to us.”
Finally, hooray for Hollywood and boo for coal-loving West Virginia’s elected con-artists in our latest Green News Report with Desi Doyen!…
Great show today! And remember, all you listeners and readers … vote flipping only SHOWS on a touchscreen voting machine when it’s done sloppily. Your vote — anyone’s vote — can be altered in the software without you being shown that anything is wrong. This is even true with touchscreen voting machines that have a paper trail.
Sanders was doing this while Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. So now we know why African Americans, supposedly, support Hillary.
I’m a bigtime Bernie-supporter, and I see Hillary as unacceptably corporatist-neoliberal.
I am not a fan. But I am realistic.
She might win.
Still, I don’t see Hillary being as vulnerable against Trump as Robinson does.
She has been through 2 bruising Presidential campaigns with Bill, right there in the thick of things, through every attack, every appearance around the country, etc etc.
Also, anyone who watched her at the Benghazi hearings last October saw Hillary at her pinnacle best, powerfully, sometimes almost effortlessly, fending off an entire GOP attack team, and she did it for 11 continuous hours.I watched at least 5-6 of those hours, and I have to sheepishly admit, I was impressed. Her deep, almost masculine laugh at the question “Were you alone all night?” was priceless (imagine mis-phrasing a serious question to a Clinton, with all of Bill’s history, in that way-That poor little GOP Congresswoman-Yikes!).
Trump’s debate style could, just possibly, play right into the hands of a knowledgable, super-smart debater with a “judo” approach (using an opponent’s force & energy against him). Hillary may be able to manage that, or perhaps not. But she might, IMO. When Trump is asked for policy details, he’s got nothing. That works for some folks, but not nearly all. That is his potential weakness, which has yet to be properly exploited.
I agree with the opinion that Bernie would make a stronger candidate against Trump than Hillary.
But I have yet to be convinced she would fold against The Bloviator. Maybe. But maybe not.
As Robinson said, nobody really knows, it’s all a guess at this point.
But if, disappointingly, Bernie comes in 2nd, it might be a great idea at the convention for Hillary to defy Party elders and invite Bernie onto the ticket as VP.
With Bernie as running mate, most millenials would be likely to stay involved, which gives the Democrats a big edge Hillary lacks by herself.
The Dems would OWN the minority vote. Progressives would show up too, IMO.
The agreement could be for Bernie to continue his revolution in the VP’s office by being in charge of several big policies, which could be negotiated at the convention.
Bernie as VP, although disappointing, would still be a consolation prize I could live with, as I feel it would be difficult to “kick him upstairs” and keep him quiet, with the recent history of powerful, involved VPs.
IMO, if Hillary does take the nomination, she’d be a fool not to offer the VP spot to Bernie.
And she should pray he’d take it.
Dang! I posted on the wrong show/date (1 day late).
I am going to copy/paste this where it belongs, on Monday’s show (2-29).
Hope it’s OK, Brad.
🙂
YUUUUGE breaking story
Serious anomolies in the Massachusetts Democtratic Primary — scientific evidence that this was stolen for Clinton. Please see links below:
Stench from Massachusetts and it’s Much Worse Than Bill Clinton’s Electioneering
MA Primary: Unadjusted Exit poll Indicates Bernie won
First Post/Link above was “hidden” as DU does not allow any posts about election fraud. Here’s what it said:
Stench from Massachusetts and it’s Much Worse Than Bill Clinton’s Electioneering
Election integrity should matter to everyone on all sides of the political spectrum regardless of who your favorite candidate is. It is shameful that the woman that wants to be the first woman president would have her husband out suppressing votes, electioneering, and creating a media circus during Super Tuesday — creating massive delays at polls and actually preventing people from voting.
But this is not the big story here though the resulting distraction does prevent a dialog about some objective facts. (NOTE: I know there is a post here that claims an “Official” claims it was legal for Bill Clinton to shake hands — this is misleading — it was electioneering to do it the way he did it, intentionally disrupting polls and disenfranchising some voters, all while creating a media side-show.)
The following is not a CT — it represents true and verifiable facts — the issues presented below are lighting up FaceBook right now. Whether you accept the scientific and mathematical analysis below is up to you, however, it is being talked about and widely accepted on social media.
Bernie Sanders won the unadjusted exit polls by a significant margin — 6%. CNN has since covered this up in 2 ways:
1. They are now only publishing confusing demographic breakdowns that make it difficult for most people to see the anomalies inherent with their “adjusted” numbers.
2. Like all exit polls in America today — the numbers that get released are massaged — actually corrupted — mathematically forced to match unverifiable machine totals. The entire purpose of exit polls is defeated by statistically manipulating them. They now mean nothing — they are literally fiction.
Exit polls matter. They are a check on election integrity. They are used by the U.S. Government to verify election results in other elections around the world. When exit polls do not match recorded/official vote totals in countries where the U.S. does not support the “winner”, it is the official position of the U.S. Government that these election results have been tampered with.
In fact, unadjusted exit polls in the U.S. consistently matched recorded/official election results until 1988 when a “red shift” phenomenon became the norm across America. Elections results now consistently skew republican in impossible ways that violate basic math principles and the law of large numbers.
Concerns over Bill Clinton’s actions in Massachusetts yesterday are a legitimate point of discussion, but his actions have shut-down an even bigger and more important dialog: The data coming out of Massachusetts cannot be accurate — best evidence is that Bernie Sanders won the actual vote count. This is YUUUUGE because without the recorded “win” in “The Bay State”, Hillary Clinton’s campaign would be widely-acknowledged as struggling and there would not be media pundits lining up to proclaim her to be the defacto nominee. Instead, the media would be talking about The Bern as he would clearly have the edge given the demographics in upcoming states.
The anomalies in CNN’s exit polls are easy to see if you know where to look. The unadjusted exit poll data consisted of 1297 interviews — large enough to result in an accurate sample. Of these, 678 voted for Bernie and 593. Remember, asking people immediately after they have done something (i.e. voting) is much more accurate than polling people about what they intend to do days, weeks, or even months in the future. The science behind adjusted exit polling is solid.
So how did CNN skew their data?
Believe it or not, they then added 109 more respondents (or so they say) and they claim that 114 voted for Clinton and only 7 voted for Sanders (NOTE: To pull this off, they had to assign -12 to “other” candidates).
Just like it was mathematically impossible for Hillary Clinton to have won 6 coin tosses in a row in Iowa, just as it was entirely unlikely that she drew an Ace in Nevada, and just as it is impossible that she could have been so lucky in each of these 2 successive contests when games of chance declared who “won”, it is not possible for an addition 100+ randomly chosen voters to have been sampled and almost all of them voted for Clinton when only 45.7% of them were Clinton voters when the first 1297 were polled.
Something smells rotten and this is not just about the anomolies in Massechussets. For a complete breakdown of this data, click HERE (second link above) — please share this on FaceBook (though many of you have already seen it there).
No prob, Don. And I shared your comment on today’s BradCast!