The 'marginal ridings' that robocalls likely targeted . . . . .

[Çons@32%]

They were in 3 key provinces: BC, Ontario and Quebec - with a few in Nova Scotia.

Yeah . . . Guelph is definitely on the list.
____________________________________________________

Marginal Seats in the 2011 Canadian Election

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/marginal-seats.html

*******************************************************
"We CAN look after each other better than we do today.
We CAN have a fiscally responsible government.
We CAN have a strong economy; greater equality; a clean environment.
We CAN be a force for peace in the world." - Jack Layton

[Chom Noamsky]

On 3/4/2012 2:00 PM, Çons@32% wrote:
> They were in 3 key provinces: BC, Ontario and Quebec - with a few in Nova Scotia.
>
> Yeah . . . Guelph is definitely on the list.
> ____________________________________________________
>

(shhh... nobody tell Karen these are 2006 & 2008 results, not 2011 results)

[Çons@32%]

Kim Dobranski aka "Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message
news:jj184b$58b$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Voter turnout was higher in 2011 than 2008, so the plan didn't work very
> well.

What the hell does 'voter turnout' have to do with a scam like the one we're discussing? There
were a helluva lot more people 'turning out' to vote because they wanted to stop Harper. And
now it's starting to look like they may have succeeded except for the dirty tricks that Harper
& Co were perpetrating on the voting public.

[Çons@32%]

"Tom P" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:jj18r9$6jp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Regardless of voter turnout, there should never have been a "Plan". The "Plan" now, I suspect
> is to try to derail Elections Canada's investigation.

You bet . . . . any party that "is investigating" its own actions - DURING THE COURSE OF AN
ELECTIONS CANADA AND RCMP INVESTIGATION - isn't doing it to 'assist'. However, if the cops and
Elections Canada ask the question: 'Who has contacted you about procedures during the election
in the last month or so?' the person being asked is going to have to make some big decisions
about cooperating or being found guilty of impeding a formal investigation.

>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2012/03/01/pol-robocalls-elections-canada.html
>
> "The Conservative Party is reviewing tapes of every call made by the Responsive Marketing
> Group call centre in Thunder Bay, Ont., in the last election before Elections Canada
> investigators arrive next week, CBC News has learned.
>
> Investigators are planning to interview the centre's staff, which the Conservative Party
> hired to make phone calls to identify and rally supporters in the 2011 federal election.
>
> Conservative Party spokesman Fred Delorey denied that Conservative officials are reviewing
> the tapes."

[Çons@32%]

Kim Dobranski aka "Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message

news:jj19ks$b6c$1...@dont-email.me...
> I hope the election authorities get to the bottom of it and the guilty party, or Party, gets
> banished to an ice flow off Baffin Island. This is the kind of shit that goes on in US
> elections. But I'll reserve judgement until the facts are established, and heck, it could
> have even been a deliberate setup.

Canadian voters don't banish political parties to ice floes (note spelling, or ask your son,
Dobranski). They banish them from sitting as government and having enough seats in Parliament
to do any further damage.

Yeah, the Liberals or NDP hired staff for all those call centres and paid for the robo-calling
firms to impersonate them as Conservatives.
Ya stupid rabbit.

[Çons@32%]

> gordo wrote...
>> Hey Vermin . The discussion was not about your hatred for unions but
>> it was about people sent to the wrong polls in an attempt to stop them
>> from voting. It is a US dirty trick kind of scandal and Perogy Harper
>> is our first Republican president of Canada whose party seems to be at
>> the heart of it.
>
Eric Schild aka "ErikŠ" <er...@null.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.29bdf507c...@news.eternal-september.org...
> can.politics restored

ALL headers 'restored'. At least they're all on THIS SIDE OF THE BORDER, aren't they, Schild?

[M.I. Wakefield]

"Çons@32%" wrote in message news:j_95r.31638$HR6....@newsfe21.iad...

If the robo-calls had the intention of suppressing voter turnout, it didn't
work: turnout in riding with no reports of trouble was 60.9%, compared to
61.6% for ridings with fake Elections Canada calls and harassing calls, and
62% for ridings with fake Elections Canada calls.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/voter-turnout-and-margin-of-victory-in-ridings-hit-by-robo-calls/article2358728/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-robo-calls-were-meant-to-keep-voters-away-they-failed-miserably/article2358726/

[Chom Noamsky]

(Karen switches from fabrication mode to exaggeration mode).

Let's FACT CHECK... general turnout was 61.4% in 2011 and 58.8% in 2008.
Since when is 2.6% 'a helluva lot more'? Give your head a 'helluva'
shake, dingbat.

[Dave Smith]

LOL... and you say I am stupid "Shitforbrains"
The allegation was that robocalls discouraged people from voting, but
the fact it that almost there were roughly 900,000 more people voting in
that election than the previous one would be a pretty good indication
that it did not work.


However... realizing how fucking dense you are and in response to your
snotty attitude, I will explain it to you. If the robocalls were
supposed to dissauade people from voting, there would be few people
voting in this election than in the previous one.
























http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=turn&document=index&lang=e

[Dave Smith]

Shiforbrains cannot give her head a shake. It rattles too much.

[Çons@32%]

Then why did you write this . . . ?

[M.I. Wakefield]

"Çons@32%" wrote in message news:fRb5r.31845$HR6....@newsfe21.iad...

> Kim Dobranski aka "Chom Noamsky"<bea...@stew.tasty> wrote
> > (Karen switches from fabrication mode to exaggeration mode).
> >
> > Let's FACT CHECK... general turnout was 61.4% in 2011 and 58.8% in 2008.
> > Since when is 2.6% 'a helluva lot more'? Give your head a 'helluva'
> > shake, dingbat.
>
> Then why did you write this . . . ?
>
> "Voter turnout was higher in 2011 than 2008, so the plan didn't work very
> well."

61.4% is more than 58.8%, but it's not 'a helluva lot more'.

You seem to have trouble judging the relative difference between numbers,
and what order events in the past happened in. You may want to get some
neurological testing.

[Çons@32%]

"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:zkb5r.2856$vJ5....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

>> LOL... and you say I am stupid "Shitforbrains"
> The allegation was that robocalls discouraged people from voting, but the fact it that almost
> there were roughly 900,000 more people voting in that election than the previous one would be
> a pretty good indication that it did not work.

I'll take it step by step for you, stoopid . . . .
1. The Canadian public was more interested in the federal election of 2011 than it was in
2008 - by how many potential voters, no one knows
2. The actual number of voters who turned out at the polls in 2011 exceeded the number in 2008
by more than a million persons

3. Unless you know how many belong to category 1 - those planning to vote - you cannot
extrapolate that because 1.1 million more voted, that there was 'no impact on the voting public
by robocalls or other dirty tricks'

Get it, stoopid? (The "get it" was rhetorical - I know you aren't capable of such concepts,
being a lower-IQ rightwinger).

[Çons@32%]

>> Kim Dobranski aka "Chom Noamsky"<bea...@stew.tasty> wrote

> 61.4% is more than 58.8%, but it's not 'a helluva lot more'.

"M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in message
news:b%b5r.421897$xn3.2...@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> You seem to have trouble judging the relative difference between numbers, and what order
> events in the past happened in. You may want to get some neurological testing.

Okay, "Wakefield" . . . . this is for still another 'lower-IQ rightwing' type:

In 2006 there were 23,054,615 people registered to vote. Of those, 14,908,703 voted.
In 2011 there were 24,257,592 people registered to vote. Of those, 14,823,408 voted.

Now, what were the 'variables' that caused fewer voters to make it to the polls on election day
in 2011 than in 2006, even though they took the time to register as voters?

See why there's an investigation going on by Elections Canada and the RCMP ? Your dirty party
may have just corrupted a federal election and are not legitimately the Government of Canada.

[Dave Smith]

On 05/03/2012 6:31 PM, Çons@32% wrote:
>
> I'll take it step by step for you, stoopid . . . .

Sure ... let's go through it item by item Shitforbrains.

> 1. The Canadian public was more interested in the federal election of 2011 than it was in
> 2008 - by how many potential voters, no one knows

Some people are whining that people were dissuaded from voting by
robocalls, but there were roughly 900,000 more voters in the recent

election than int he previous one.

> 2. The actual number of voters who turned out at the polls in 2011 exceeded the number in 2008
> by more than a million persons

Bullshit. Since you have a history of lying and not providing cites I
will just assume that you lied about that and thought that you could get
away with lying.

It was closer to 900,000.. It was the second biggest turnout in Canadian
history, and less than 100,000 short of the all time high in 2006.

> 3. Unless you know how many belong to category 1 - those planning to vote - you cannot
> extrapolate that because 1.1 million more voted, that there was 'no impact on the voting public
> by robocalls or other dirty tricks'

Well what the hell, if you are going to lie about the numbers that you
might as well postulate whatever asinine theory you can dream up.

>
> Get it, stoopid? (The "get it" was rhetorical - I know you aren't capable of such concepts,
> being a lower-IQ rightwinger).
>

LOL Shitforbrians but you should have provided a cite for your factoids
because you just got caught in another lie.

[Dave Smith]

What Shiforbrains conveniently omitted was the line (from the cit I had
provided) that showed the turn out for the 2008 election 23,677, 639
eligible voters and 13,929,093 voted. She countered the argument about
the increase in voters from the previous election with figures from *a*
previous election, but not from the most recent previous election.

Shitforbrains has been caught fudging the date yet again, and that is
another example of why she is such a pathetic piece of crap.
























http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=turn&document=index&lang=e

[M.I. Wakefield]

"Çons@32%" wrote in message news:N1c5r.37611$np3....@newsfe05.iad...

And Kkkaren the ignorant once again misses that fact that we do have 2011
data to compare ridings that were robo-called to: ridings that were not
robo-called.

And what we find is that voter turn out was up more in ridings with
robo-call complaints that in ridings without.

"Compared to 2008, turnout increased by 4.7 per cent in these ridings. It
increased by only 3.9 per cent in ridings that have not been implicated in
the scandal. Turnout in neighbouring untainted ridings does not seem to have
been significantly different. If these allegations of voter suppression
tactics are indeed true, they do not appear to have been very successful."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-robo-calls-were-meant-to-keep-voters-away-they-failed-miserably/article2358726/

[Dave Smith]

On 05/03/2012 6:59 PM, M.I. Wakefield wrote:

>>
>> Get it, stoopid? (The "get it" was rhetorical - I know you aren't
>> capable of such concepts, being a lower-IQ rightwinger).
>
> And Kkkaren the ignorant once again misses that fact that we do have
> 2011 data to compare ridings that were robo-called to: ridings that were
> not robo-called.
>

Oh no. It's worse than that. Shitforbrains aka KKKaren was ver
dishonest in her presentation of the data. She showed the results only
for the 2011 and 2006 elections which showed a slight decrease, but she
purposely omitted the 2008 election results. There had been a drastic
drop in voter turnout between 2006 and 2008, and then an increase in 2011.

[Çons@32%]

"M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in message

news:jrc5r.7941$dy1....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> And Kkkaren the ignorant once again misses that fact that we do have 2011 data to compare
> ridings that were robo-called to: ridings that were not robo-called.

Which ridings "WERE robo-called" and which ones "WERE NOT robo-called", ya stupid rabbit? You
seem to have information that not even Elections Canada nor the RCMP have yet compiled.
Anything to back up your "data" ?

[M.I. Wakefield]

"Çons@32%" wrote in message news:0ac5r.31847$HR6....@newsfe21.iad...

> "M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in message
> news:b%b5r.421897$xn3.2...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> > You seem to have trouble judging the relative difference between
> > numbers, and what order events in the past happened in. You may want to
> > get some neurological testing.
>
> Okay, "Wakefield" . . . . this is for still another 'lower-IQ rightwing'
> type:
>
> In 2006 there were 23,054,615 people registered to vote. Of those,
> 14,908,703 voted.
> In 2011 there were 24,257,592 people registered to vote. Of those,
> 14,823,408 voted.

See? You misplaced an entire election (hint: it was in 2008).

But why compare across time, when we have to worry about so many variables?
Let's just look at 2011 turnout, comparing ridings where fake Elections
Canada calls have been reported to those where there haven't been reports:

"Compared to 2008, turnout increased by 4.7 per cent in these ridings. It
increased by only 3.9 per cent in ridings that have not been implicated in
the scandal. Turnout in neighbouring untainted ridings does not seem to have
been significantly different. If these allegations of voter suppression
tactics are indeed true, they do not appear to have been very successful."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-robo-calls-were-meant-to-keep-voters-away-they-failed-miserably/article2358726/

> Now, what were the 'variables' that caused fewer voters to make it to the
> polls on election day in 2011 than in 2006, even though they took the time
> to register as voters?

Leaving out inconvenient data (i.e. the 2008 election) is intellectually
dishonest, and renders your entire argument moot.

[David Johnston]

They weren't supposed to dissuade people from voting. They were
supposed to dissuade Liberals from voting.

[Dave Smith]

On 05/03/2012 8:10 PM, David Johnston wrote:
t it did not work.
>>
>>
>> However... realizing how fucking dense you are and in response to your
>> snotty attitude, I will explain it to you. If the robocalls were
>> supposed to dissauade people from voting, there would be few people
>> voting in this election than in the previous one.
>
> They weren't supposed to dissuade people from voting. They were supposed
> to dissuade Liberals from voting.

Yet, there were about 900,000 more people voting in that election than
in the previous one.

[Chom Noamsky]

The original post (by Karen Gordon):

"They were in 3 key provinces: BC, Ontario and Quebec - with a few in
Nova Scotia. Yeah . . . Guelph is definitely on the list."

And now:

'Which ridings "WERE robo-called" and which ones "WERE NOT robo-called",
ya stupid rabbit?'

Karen reminds one of the proverbial monkey that throws shit around in
hopes that a smelly handful will hit something.

[Çons@32%]

Kim Dobranski aka "Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message

news:jj3oi0$qu0$1...@dont-email.me...

> 'Which ridings "WERE robo-called" and which ones "WERE NOT robo-called", ya stupid rabbit?'
>
> Karen reminds one of the proverbial monkey that throws shit around in hopes that a smelly
> handful will hit something.

It ALWAYS hits 'something', Dobranski. . . . that's why you, "Wakefield" (your other you),
Eric Schild, "Dave Smith" and a few other
'brothers-under-the-thin-skin-when-it-comes-to-females' are such a captive audience. AKA -
obsession with one particular female poster that just doesn't back down from intimidation or
wolf-pack tactics.

Always wiping yourselves off . . . . and then coming back for more . . . .

[Çons@32%]

"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

news:hwd5r.130627$241....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Yet, there were about 900,000 more people voting in that election than in the previous one.

But fewer than were INTENDING TO VOTE than in previous elections - right, "Smith" ?

[M.I. Wakefield]

"Çons@32%" wrote in message news:t0d5r.30297$I%6.1...@newsfe16.iad...

When someone posts a link, it's because it contains more information
relevant to their post.

Maybe if you'd read them, you'd look less foolish.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-robo-calls-were-meant-to-keep-voters-away-they-failed-miserably/article2358726/

[Çons@32%]

>> Which ridings "WERE robo-called" and which ones "WERE NOT robo-called", ya stupid rabbit?
>> You seem to have information that not even Elections Canada nor the RCMP have yet compiled.
>> Anything to back up your "data" ?

"M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in message

news:RTd5r.315425$mY2.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> When someone posts a link, it's because it contains more information relevant to their post.
>
> Maybe if you'd read them, you'd look less foolish.

And maybe if you used your BIG head instead of your little one to react to such 'news', you'd
have fewer premature ejaculations that show your impotence on any issue that involves more than
homosexualty.

[David Johnston]

So what?

[Dave Smith]

Show me the data on how many were intending to vote but didn't because
they were too stupid to figure out where to go,

[M.I. Wakefield]

"Çons@32%" wrote in message news:I9e5r.26564$cL....@newsfe17.iad...

> "M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in message
> news:RTd5r.315425$mY2.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> > When someone posts a link, it's because it contains more information
> > relevant to their post.
> >
> > Maybe if you'd read them, you'd look less foolish.

> And maybe if you used your BIG head instead of your little one <Snip!>

Capitulation noted.

[M.I. Wakefield]

"Çons@32%" wrote in message news:I9e5r.26564$cL....@newsfe17.iad...

Why is Kkkaren so bitter about gay men?

Not that she likes straight men any better ...

[Dave Smith]

On 05/03/2012 8:09 PM, M.I. Wakefield wrote:
calls have been reported to those where there haven't
> been reports:
>
> "Compared to 2008, turnout increased by 4.7 per cent in these ridings.
> It increased by only 3.9 per cent in ridings that have not been
> implicated in the scandal. Turnout in neighbouring untainted ridings
> does not seem to have been significantly different. If these allegations
> of voter suppression tactics are indeed true, they do not appear to have
> been very successful."
>
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-robo-calls-were-meant-to-keep-voters-away-they-failed-miserably/article2358726/
>
>
>> Now, what were the 'variables' that caused fewer voters to make it to
>> the polls on election day in 2011 than in 2006, even though they took
>> the time to register as voters?
>
> Leaving out inconvenient data (i.e. the 2008 election) is intellectually
> dishonest, and renders your entire argument moot.

I had to disagree with you, but it does not make her argument moot. It
makes it a lie. Shitforbrains is arguing about a trend. The point made
was that voter turnout was higher in this election than it had been in
the previous one. Shitforbrains KKKaren took the data from the site that
I had linked, and then, leaving out the link that would allow people to
verify the data........ purposely omitted the results from the previous
election.



This is another example of Shitforbrains KKKaren's dishonesty and it
once again demonstrates by Shitforbrains copies and pastes articles
without links.... so that she can doctor the quotes and the data.

I am not prepared to say that every article she quotes and that every
set of data that she uses are fabrications, but she obviously does it
often enough that there is no credibility to her quotes without a valid
link.

Bear in mind that Shitforbrains also creates factoids to support her
opinions, like when she claimed that Sawyer Robison was a normal guy who
snapped and shot and killed his uncle and then shot two cops. She has
never posted and linked a cite for that because she outright lied about it.