How do Democrats keep winning elections? REVEALED!

I have never understood how liberals win elections.

Sure, every single media outlet (except this one) is part of the liberal agenda, but still. Supposedly, it is because minorities vote for Democrats. That does not make sense to me, because they are, by definition, in the minority.

It’s no wonder that patriotic states are enforcing new voter ID laws. Even if these laws prevent real people from voting, who cares? They’re voting for liberals and liberals are basically not Americans anyway.

However, after entire minutes of investigation, I have found that the truth behind how liberals win elections is literally unbelievable… and I can prove it!

On October 10th, the father of Newark Mayor Cory Booker passed away from Parkinson’s disease…or so that’s what they want you to think. Booker, who was running for New Jersey Senate, suspended all campaign events in order to grieve the loss. At the time, Booker held a steady lead in all the liberal polls, but was clearly losing to Republican opponent Steve Lonegan (if you unskewed the polls).

Six days later, Cory Booker won the special election by over 10 points. This was shocking to many, because not only did Lonegan have the support of popular New Jersey governor Chris Christie, but also senators Rand Paul and even liberal socialists like Ted Cruz. The only logical explanation is that there must be a connection between winning the election and his father’s death.

This is not the first time this sequence of events has occurred. On November 3, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama’s grandmother passed away in “Hawaii,” the fictional group of islands that Obama claims to be from and my parents claim to have gone on for their honeymoon.

The next day, Obama stunned the country by receiving more votes for President than Sarah Palin…I mean, John McCain. Literally nobody expected this, and yet it happened. I am not the first person to notice how fishy this is: theorized that Obama poisoned his grandmother with mercury because he did not want people to find out she was a communist, which makes much more sense than the bland suggestion that she was 86 years old and had a myriad of health problems that come with old age.

These two data points conclusively and undeniably prove that Democrats have to kill family members in order to win elections!

How exactly does that work, you might ask?

If you are anything like my mother, you may think this helps liberals win elections by making voters sympathetic to the candidates right before the election, effectively winning the last few days of the news cycle. But if you are anything like my mother, you’re wrong!

Democrat-loving Baphomet has liberal biasI asked my secret source within the Democratic National Committee, rumoured to have distant ties to an elite society known only as The Order of the Second Circle, and he told me that with money from Van Jones and ACORN, they employ a demonologist to communicate with Baphomet, an ancient goat-headed deity commonly associated with the Illuminati. It is common knowledge that 1. the Illuminati is totally a real thing and 2. It got a Muslim atheist from Kenya that even makes John McCain look like a conservative elected President.

Is it possible that these otherwise inexplicable deaths were actually blood sacrifices to the Demon Baphomet?

Could it be that Democrats, in their desperate and craven quest for power have employed unholy forces that allow them to win elections against all odds or rational sense?

Is there even a remote chance that any of this is true???

We report, you decide.

There is only one inconsistency that makes me question my own theory. Sacrificial offerings to a higher power are a big part of the Old Testament, the only part of the Bible we know to be 100% factually accurate. Since all liberals are Muslim atheists who believe in helping their fellow man instead of the teachings of Jesus, why would they subscribe to beliefs held in the Old Testament? How could they?

Perhaps liberals are learning the way of the good book. Maybe there’s hope for them after all.

Will the stock market re-elect Obama?

 Landslide Elections and the Stock Market.

Robert Prechter, the head of the Socionomics Institute, recently published a paper with some very distressing statistics that may just predict the end of the world as we know it, a.k.a. the re-election of President Obama. According to his study, a booming stock market usually leads to a landslide re-election. And as we have already reported, our liberally biased stock market is booming right now, despite the evil incompetence of our foreign socialist President.

After extensive statistical analysis, using a number of different methodologies, Prechter and his colleagues found one conclusion that consistently showed up when looking at re-elections going back all the way to the very beginning of the United States as a country: the margin of victory of an incumbent facing reelection is positively related to the percent change in the stock market over the prior three years before the election.  As a result, the elections that were held after the largest three-year increases in the stock market lead to landslide re-elections of the incumbent, while elections that were held after the largest three-year decreases in the stock market lead to landslide ousters of the incumbent and election of the challenger.

This statistical result is surprisingly robust, with the same pattern showing up over the entire history of the country and even when special efforts are made to remove other possible factors, such as the GDP and employment.

If we take this statistical pattern seriously, it spells big trouble for the upcoming election. Even though President Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist who plays basketball and hates successful people, the fact remains that from November 1, 2009 to September 28, 2012 the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by 50%.

Does this really mean Obama is destined to win?  And possibly in a landslide victory?

Or is it just one more example of statistics and numbers exhibiting a disgusting liberal bias????

We report, you decide.


graph source: “Social Mood, Stock Market Performance and U.S. Presidential Elections: A Socionomic Perspective on Voting Results” by Robert R. Prechter Jr., Deepak Goel, Wayne D. Parker, and Matthew Lampert.
graph found via: Social Science Research Network

Th electoral college has a liberal bias!

Liberal Electoral College

Everyone knows that the electoral college should be done away with. For one thing, it has the word “college” in it.  For another thing, it could be responsible for re-electing the worst President since the beginning of time: Barack Obama.

The above graph shows the daily total electoral college score for Obama and Romney since January, including all states, even those within the margin of error. Unbelievably, even though Romney has been consistently ahead of Obama in popularity by like a million points or something like that, Obama has been consistently ahead of Romney in terms of the electoral college vote.

Obviously, there is something sinister afoot!


Some people might say that we should do away with the electoral college and instead just go with the popular vote.  But not so fast!  Remember that Satanic Underlord Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and we can Thank the Lord for the electoral college preventing that disaster from having happened.

So what can we do? Well, the same old Democracy-preserving, righteous things we’ve always done: redistricting to shut out Democrats, prevent poor people and students from voting, and scare people to death.  It’s the American way.

Anything else would just lead to electoral college liberal bias!!!


data source and graph:


Swing states have a liberal bias!

Biased Swing States.

We have put together this graph based on data from the Electoral Vote website, to illustrate a potential problem for this upcoming election: a strange and inexplicable liberal bias in the so-called “swing states.”

This graph compares polling data in September 2008 to polling data in September 2012, and (for each state) shows whether the support for Obama over Romney in 2012 is greater or less than support for Obama over McCain in 2008.  For example, on the extremes: you can see that in New York State the support for Obama is over 20% greater now than it was in 2008; on the other hand, in Alaska the support for Obama has decreased almost 20% in 2012 compared to his support in September before the 2008 election.

Of course, no matter what the increases and decreases, some of these states are solidly “red states” and will never support Obama while other states are communist “blue states” and will support him no matter how terrible he is.  To show these states, we have colored their bars red and blue, respectively.  So, for example, you can see that although Tennessee is showing more support for Obama now than in the 2008 election, this doesn’t matter because they are still overwhelmingly supporting Romney. On the other hand, Hawaii also is showing more support for Obama now than in 2008, but this doesn’t matter because they are all socialists and were going to support Obama no matter what anyway.

What actually is critical, however, is the “swing states”, which are colored in purple. Seven swing states (New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina) have changed to be slightly more in favor of Obama this year than they were at this time in 2008.  By contrast, only two swing states (Iowa and Wisconsin) have changed to be less favorable to Obama.

What is wrong with you, stupid swing states? Why do you hate freedom?


Luckily, there is one good thing we can get from this graph: a most extreme Red States (all of the red bars on the right side of the graph), which were already super-against Obama to begin with, have become dramatically even more super-duper against Obama this year!

Sure, some people might call this “radicalization of the fringe”….. but for good conservatives, it is called “progress.”


Data Source:
Graph Created By:

National conventions have a liberal bias!

Biased conventions.

We have put together this graph based on data from the Rasmussen survey data website, to illustrate a problem with the political process in America today. Specifically: national nominating conventions appear to have a liberal bias!

It is common knowledge that a party’s candidate is supposed to get a “bump” as a result of their party’s national convention. In a fair and unbiased society, therefore, we would expect Obama’s approval rating to go down during the Republican national convention and his approval to go up during the Democratic national convention, and in the end there would be no real difference.

According to the always virtuous, reliable, and fair Rasmussen poll, Obama’s approval went from +1 (50-49) at the beginning of the Republican convention week down to -3 (48-51) at the end of that week, plummeting by a disastrous 4 points.

However, according to the same poll, during the Democratic convention Obama’s approval went from -4 (48-52) up to 5 (52-47) at the end of that week, an increase of 9 points! That is more than double the size of the effect of the Republican convention, and even pushes Obama’s approval greater than his disapproval.

What is wrong with you stupid conventions, why are you being so unfair to Republicans??


Luckily, there is one good thing we can get from this graph:Look at the difference between “Total Disapprove” and “Strongly Disapprove.”  Over time, this has been getting smaller and smaller, so that we are almost to the point where every single person who disapproves of Obama at all has an absolute searing hatred of him!

Sure, some people might call this “radicalization of the fringe”….. but for good conservatives, it is called “progress.”


Data Source:
Graph Created By:

Mitt Romney’s birth certificate has a liberal bias!

Mitt Romney Anchor Baby Birth Certificate


Mitt Romney Forged Birth Certificate

Recently, a number of very alarming questions have arisen regarding Mitt Romney’s birth certificate.

The problem IS NOT that we suspect that Mitt Romney might not be born in the United States. That would be ridiculous, since he’s white, has a completely normal American name (“Willard”) and can’t dance. He’s clearly American.

The problem IS NOT that his father was born in Mexico but ran for President of the United States, because first of all who cares? And second of all, that was totally a long time ago.

However, we cannot help but noticing a suspicious pattern: a set of similarities between Mitt Romney’s released birth certificate, and the completely discredited and invalid birth certificate released by Barack Obama.

1) Mitt Romney has only released his “Certificate of Live Birth”.  Many people have pointed out that when Barack Obama released his “Certificate of Live Birth” that this is not the same thing as a long-form birth certificate and that therefore Obama is a foreign spy.  Since that is obviously true, why would Mitt Romney release the same discredited document?

2) Mitt Romney’s birth certificate says that it was issued January 18, 2012. Many people have pointed out that since Barack Obama’s supposed birth certificate was only printed very recently, it is likely to be forged or created after-the-fact, and is therefore invalid. Since that argument is obviously correct, why would Mitt Romney also produce a document that was just printed this year?

3) Mitt Romney’s birth certificate is weirdly cropped and doesn’t have a border that goes all the way around it.  Many people have criticized the copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate that appeared on the web, on the grounds that it looked like it was scanned poorly and therefore absolutely must be a forgery. Since that argument is clearlyl flawless in its reasoning, why would Mitt Romney produce a similarly flawed digital image of his birth certificate?

The conclusion is clear!  This document is NOT MITT ROMNEY’S REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

Instead, it is a forgery created by liberals, with deliberate flaws introduced in order to call Mitt Romney’s eligibility for office into question.

We must start a campaign to demand that Mitt Romney publish his original, printed-in-1947, long-form birth certificate, because the document above is obviously the product of liberal bias!!

image source: Huffington Post


Campaign finance money has a liberal bias!

Campaign Spending Bias

Ultra-liberal radical communist Lawrence O’Donnell has been trying to spin the total and utter defeat of all liberal thought and beliefs in Wisconsin using the above statistics. He claims that the only reason Scott Walker won is because he spent almost 10 times the amount of money on his campaign and received almost three times as much from outside groups.

This claim is designed to confuse you and hide an important and critical fact.

According to CBS News, the estimated total turnout of this election has been 2.8 million people.  If Scott Walker received 54% of those votes, as projected, then he received 1,512,000 votes. Since the above statistics estimate the total spending in support of Scott Walker’s campaign to be about $45 million, that means each vote cost:

$45,000,000 / 1,512,000 votes   = $29.76 per vote

On the other hand, if the Democrat candidate Tom Barrett received 45% of the votes, then that totals 1,260,000 votes for the democrat.  Since the above statistics estimate the total spending in support of the Barrett campaign at $9 million, that means each vote cost:

$9,000,000 / 1,260,000 votes = $7.14 per vote

This is a dramatic and disturbing conclusion.


In a free and equal society, a vote should cost the same regardless of what your political party is, right? That sounds fair. That seems logical. If our election system were fair, then every vote would cost the same amount, and since Scott Walker spent five times more money he should get five times as many votes!

If poor, downtrodden Republicans are being forced unfairly to pay more for the votes that they get, then it obviously must be the result of liberal bias!!!!!


Image Source: MSNBC, “The Last Word” by Chris O’Donnell