How widespread is the voter registration fraud that ACORN has been responsible for? How much has it artificially boosted Democrat registration numbers this year?
There are two factors that have increased Dem registration this year. One is the efforts by ACORN and similar groups. The other is the significant numbers of Republicans who switched to Democrat so that they could vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. The first group isn't going to vote for Obama because they don't exist, to a large extent. The second group is going to vote for John McCain.
All of the likely (and even registered) voter polls are skewed to sample Dems more because of this perceived increase in Democrat voters. But if much of that increase is illusory, due to the factors described above, are the polls overstating support for Obama?
[Update late evening]
Iowahawk is on the case in defense of a truly defenseless minority: ACORN files suit on behalf of the voting rights of Imaginary-Americans:
"Whether we are obituary notices, hallucinatory giant rabbits, or strings of random keyboard strokes, it's time for the chimera community to stand up and claim our rights as citizens," said ASDFG. "We will no longer be silent and invisible. Okay, maybe invisible."
In addition to $3.2 jubajillion in damages and free federal mortgages for homeless spectres, the suit also seeks enforcement of the Americans with Dimensional Disabilities Act. The Act requires voting places to make accommodations for existentially-challenged voters who have trouble completing ballots written in standard 3-dimensional reality. The accommodations include multiple site registration, time travel, and allowances for alcoholics to cast ballots for dependent D.T. phantasms.
"Many of our community inhabit the Tapioca subluster of the 11th Dimension, and it's hard for them to find a convenient spacehole to make it to the local elementary school," explained ASDFG.
Classic. And one that I wish that I'd thought of. Though as always, Burge does a much better job with the concept than I would have, anyway.
John Zogby recently gave an interview where he said the most important thing to remember is that, if you ask the right questions you'll find that almost 20% of the electorate hasn't made up their mind. It could still break either way.
If the Democrat numbers are inflated as you describe, with the effect that you describe, and this combines with a Bradley Effect, then I predict ten more years of "Stolen Election" screams from the moonbats.
Rand, if you are correct, great wealth awaits you at InTrade. Go for it!
Atlas has uncovered a document that everyone should read, I've summarized it here.
"Atlas has uncovered a document that everyone should read, I've summarized it here."
That "document" is riddled with errors and exaggerations. Only 25-30% of the nation's subprime loans were made under the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, and CRA loans have had a lower default rate than subprime loans made by independent mortgage companies. CRA did not drive the current financial crisis, not by a long shot.
Joe Blow, whatever minor errors you may have found... that's not the point of the article. Your looking at a leaf and missing the forest.
This is a coup, financed by the American people against themselves. Beat the weeds all you want, but the big picture will lead to civil war once people start to figure it out... and they are.
"Joe Blow, whatever minor errors you may have found..."
It's not a minor error to blame the credit crisis on CRA subprime loans, when in fact CRA loans only make up a fraction of the total subprime market. It's a major error, a major omission, and a major exaggeration.
It's not a minor error to blame the credit crisis on CRA subprime loans, when CRA loans have a lower default rate than the rest of the subprime market. It's a major error, a major omission, and a major exaggeration.
"that's not the point of the article."
The "point of the article" has no basis in fact. It's made up.
"Your"
A nit... it's "you're", not "your".
"looking at a leaf and missing the forest."
I'm "missing the forest" because it's an imaginary conspiracy grown in a bed of quicksand lacking any basis in reality or fact. In the absence of any hard numbers that CRA loans dominated or drove the subprime mortgage market (and in the face of figures showing that CRA did no such thing), this "document" is useless sideshow (written in Australia of all places) that has little to do with the real financial ills affecting our nation.
"This is a coup, financed by the American people against themselves... the big picture will lead to civil war once people start to figure it out... and they are."
Huh? Are you really threatening to take up arms? Better keep that kind of talk off the net... the CRA stormtroopers in their Blackhawks will hear you!
Ugh...
I think, Rand, that you are way too optimistic in thinking that the "people" registered by ACORN won't be voting.
If they've registered, then they can ask for absentee ballots. Or they can vote in multiple precincts. Students, back in 2000, talked about voting twice, once in their home state and once where they went to school (and do we think they'll break for Obama or McCain?).
It's not a minor error to blame the credit crisis on CRA subprime loans
Let's see if you can understand this, CRA along with the packaging of derivatives by Fannie and Freddie heated up the housing market. You may have heard of the 'bubble?' Yes, others made sub-prime loans, my Russian wife was in the business of making those loans for over a year in Sacramento... I'm very familiar with them and the people that got such mortgages. Are you familiar with the concept that it only takes a little match to start a big fire?
The "point of the article" has no basis in fact. It's made up.
So NACA and ACORN don't exist and the bailout they just past is not going to funnel more money to ACORN? They never acted to 'persuade' banks to make loans for their members? Nice try.
A nit... it's "you're", not "your".
Absolutely correct, that's one so far.
"looking at a leaf and missing the forest."
I'm "missing the forest" because it's an imaginary conspiracy
Nobody said it was a conspiracy, although you can be forgiven for thinking it does look suspiciously like one. The lust for greed, money and power is sufficient without claiming any conspiracy.
Huh? Are you really threatening to take up arms?
For the sake of argument, suspend disbelief while we assume a few things...
Obama wins the election.
Unlike the Florida recount, where Bush won every subsequent count...
We find many instances of 105% of a precinct voting democrat. People begin to scratch their heads. Some of them get angry. Some of the other side says something vulgar and it's Hatfield and McCoy time.
Or, the FBI investigates and brings RICO charges that include our newly minted sitting president and several members of congress.
He's jailed and his supporters go nuts. Worse, than say, a bad result at a football game (where they have set fire to municipal vehicles and buildings.) They decide to take it out on all those brown shirt Nazi christians.
Not likely I agree, but just because you can't imagine it, doesn't rule out the possibility. Have you never seen a major riot? Imagine it happening in every major city at the same time. It may not be 1860, but you would be forgiven for feeling it worse if you happen to be somewhere near a center.
How long did that Florida mess take to clean up? This would be worse.
passed... did it again!
I find it interesting that several scandals (e.g., Enron, Worldcom) means that there is a need, nay, a screaming necessity for massive new regulations (such as Sarbanes-Oxley). The American capitalist system is simply riddled with fraud, criminality, etc., because a handful of companies engaged in said criminal actions.
But CRA's working hand-in-hand with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Nuthin' to see here, just move along folks.
Would Joe accept his own arguments, if they were applied to Enron? After all, Enron constituted "only a fraction" of the companies profiting off power deregulation, and less than a minute fraction of American companies, whereas Sarbanes-Oxley applies to them all.
Somehow, I don't think so....
"Let's see if you can understand this, CRA along with the packaging of derivatives by Fannie and Freddie heated up the housing market."
Again, CRA only accounts for a quarter of the subprime market, and CRA loans have a lower default rate than the rest of that market.
And Fannie and Freddie came very late to the game, buying up subprime loan packages only after other financial institutions had already made those loans. (Fannie and Freddie are loan-purchasing, not loan-making, organizations.)
"Yes, others made sub-prime loans, my Russian wife was in the business of making those loans for over a year in Sacramento... I'm very familiar with them and the people that got such mortgages."
Exactly. If we want to understand the driving causes of the credit collapse, we have to pay attention to the sources of the other three-quarters of sub-prime loans, and why those loans have a higher default rate.
"For the sake of argument, suspend disbelief while we assume a few things... We find many instances of 105% of a precinct voting democrat... Not likely I agree, but just because you can't imagine it, doesn't rule out the possibility."
Although pertinent to Mr. Simberg's original post, this has nothing to do with the credit collapse.
"But CRA's working hand-in-hand with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?"
CRA is a law, not an organization. It didn't work "hand-in-hand" with Fannie, Freddie, or anyone else.
"Would Joe accept his own arguments, if they were applied to Enron?"
Yes. Just like CRA, Enron wasn't the driver of any major financial collapse.
And again, this mixes apples and oranges. CRA is a law. Enron was a company.
Ok Joe, I'm trying very hard to see your side of it.
CRA only accounts for a quarter of the subprime market, and CRA loans have a lower default rate than the rest of that market.
So your argument is not that CRA does not bear some responsibility, but that it is less than other causes.
Which is fine, but does not address the other issue that left-wing organizations have use CRA to intimidate banks to the tune of billions of dollars. Not just for their members, but to finance other parts of the left-wing agenda. Even doing the loan process for the banks, then handing it to the banks to provide the actual financing.
If we want to understand the driving causes of the credit collapse, we have to pay attention to the sources of the other three-quarters of sub-prime loans, and why those loans have a higher default rate.
I think you're still missing the point. Regardless of how many other factors that may even be a larger factor in the overall meltdown, the CRA and FM&FM have been identified as a significant contributor. 25% is significant, especially if the other 75% is made up of 1 or 2 percent distributed here and there (or are you prepared to identify other specific cases that contribute a more significant percentage? ...AND show that the CRA didn't influence those cases?)
Also, I think most people here already know that FM&FM do not originate loans, but did provide the liquidity that allowed the heating up of the market. Anyone else providing trillions? Not just to banks, but to Pols as well?
>> The first group isn't going to vote for Obama
>> because they don't exist, to a large extent.
Rand, you obviously know nothing about Chicago machine politics (Which Obama grew up in, and ACORN almost certainly copies). The quip around “Chi-town” was that Chicagoans believed in democracy so much, they saw no reason when the dead shouldn’t be allowed to vote –democratic.
I expect those non existent voters will still make it to the polls.
> Chicagoans believed in democracy so much, they saw no reason when the dead shouldn’t be allowed to vote –democratic.
However, Obama believes that the dead should not be allowed to sign his oppoents' nominating petitions.