Thursday, November 8, 2012 In Cleveland, in some districts he did with an astounding 100% of the vote in dozens of locations. For example, in Cleveland's Fifth Ward, Mr. Obama won districts E, F, and G 1,337 to Mitt Romney's... 0. Well, maybe that's just a fluke. In the Ninth Ward, Mr. Obama won districts D-G with a paltry total of 1,740 to... 3. Hey, at least Romney got .2% of the vote! Okay, what if we look at an entire Ward? No way this trend continues, right? An entire ward. Why not do the First Ward? Obama won that one 12,857 to... 94. This time Romney got .7% of the vote. He's moving up in the world! In total, there are 21 districts in Cleveland where Mr. Romney received precisely 0 votes. In 23 districts, he received precisely 1 vote. And naturally, in one of the districts where Obama won 100% of the vote, there was 100% turnout. By the way, in case you are thinking that Romney did so poorly because maybe those districts were not very populated: Nope. In those 44 districts, Mr. Obama won 14,686 to 23. That's .16% of the vote for Romney. http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/what-luck-obama-won-dozens-of-cleveland.html What is going on here.
Do you understand the odds of that happening in a town with 1000 or more people? even if they were all black and 95% of black people vote for Obama, the odds of that happening are slim to none.
If those were minority districts its possible .There were polls that had Romney getting 0 % of the black vote.
From your article, WTF??!? "In total, there are 21 districts in Cleveland where Mr. Romney received precisely 0 votes. In 23 districts, he received precisely 1 vote. And naturally, in one of the districts where Obama won 100% of the vote, there was 100% turnout. What a coincidence!"
1) You said "it" in your own words. The odds are slim, but still "finite" nevertheless. 2) Lesser educated people are more susceptible to influence and "crowd contagion". :eek: