Election Rigging: Are Intentional "Dives" Semi-Routine?

There should be little or no doubt that the mainstream media rigs elections by only covering candidates they support, especially for higher office like Governors, Senators and the President. Oligarchs also have authoritarian control of other powerful institutions including the DNC, RNC, Commission on Presidential Debates, and many other organizations that have a major influence over politics.

The evidence for intentional dives by establishment candidates isn't nearly as conclusive as some of the more obvious efforts to control powerful institutions but a close look at past campaigns might indicate that it's a real possibility, and it might shed light on how they rig elections, and how to avoid it in the future. However, since many will consider this a fringe conspiracy theory, even it it's partially true, the majority of focus when it comes to reforming the system should be based on hard facts that we can be sure of, and that people will believe; and there are plenty of sources in alternative media outlets that have reported on some of the most credible efforts to rig elections. Since the mainstream media ignores most of this I've provided a few links below to some of the best ones I know of.

Some of the most incompetent and failed campaigns, from the beginning include Mitt Romney and Bob Dole, both of whom were declared inevitable nominees before voters cast any primary ballots even though very few people thought either had a chance to beat Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Another campaign that looks a lot like it might be an intentional dive might be the Howard Dean campaign to win the 2004 Democratic Nomination which, contrary to the impression the media often gives, collapsed before his famous Dean Scream. The 2000, 2016, and many other campaigns may provide some additional circumstantial evidence of either intentional dives or mind boggling stupidity, with one incredibly stupid blunder after another by both nominees.

In the case of Howard Dean, regardless of why his campaign collapsed it set the stage for two members of the Skull and Bones society to run against each other in 2004 guaranteeing that one of these representatives of the oligarchy would be president. His campaign is also part of a continuing pattern of behavior where the candidate rallies many devoted progressives to his cause, thinking he'll represent their views; only to find, eventually, that he sold them out to the same corporate interests that he was campaigning against.

Ironically one of the leading reasons his campaign collapsed in 2004 is because of an old interview from years before, where he justifiably questioned the Iowa Caucus process, which is controlled by a small percentage of the public, although it seems to allow all people to participate. But his response to it involved obvious pandering and while he was retracting legitimate concerns he was also suspected of other manipulation tactics that he previously criticized.

The following article reports on his questions about the Iowa Caucuses:

Dean on defensive about Iowa comments 01/09/2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrat Howard Dean moved quickly to limit fallout from Thursday night's airing by NBC News of comments he made three years ago to a Canadian public affairs program in which he disparaged the Iowa caucuses.

"I have spent nearly two years here in Iowa, talking to Iowans and campaigning in all 99 counties," Dean said in a statement released late Thursday by his campaign. "I believe it's time to stand together, in common purpose, to take our country back -- and the Iowa caucus is where it all begins. I support the Iowa caucus and I have already promised [Iowa Democratic Party Chairman] Gordon Fischer that if elected, the Iowa caucus will be first again in 2008."

In the taped interview, conducted in 2000 when Dean was governor of Vermont, he said, "If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by special interests on both sides and both parties. Special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They tend to represent the extremes. ...

"Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids," he said. "On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours?

"I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world," Dean added. Complete article

The biggest problem with this was his incredibly bad response to it along with other blunders that have been mostly forgotten by now including several claims that he was using using out of state campaign workers to attend the caucuses or participating in vote swapping practices that could help rig some precincts. But instead of speaking out in favor of reforming the system, which many people around the country might appreciate he pandered to those supporting the current system, which seemed incredibly phony.

To this day there have been few or no changes to the Iowa Caucuses or any of the other flawed systems controlled by the political establishment, which the vast majority of the public don't even understand, let alone help control it. A small percentage of the public routinely studies them closer, but they have little or not opportunity to either change them or access to the mass media so they can inform the public about it. When the mainstream media does report on many of these problems they report them briefly before letting them fall down the memory hole; and if there are any changes they have new flaws that enable insiders who create the new rules to manipulate the system.

During the 2004 Iowa Caucuses Dick Gephardt accused the Dean campaign of planning to use his out of state supporters to participate in the caucuses, allegedly based on an insider from the Dean campaign blowing the whistle. The Dean campaign denied this but acknowledged that they had an enormous number of paid supporters from other states working in Iowa.

Whether or not Dean was playing all these dirty tricks Gephardt accused him of, both Dean and Gephardt became lobbyists after losing this election, and Dean also spent plenty of time as DNC Chair or a pundit on MSNBC or other channels where he pushes policies and candidates supported by Wall Street. Dean has claimed he's not a lobbyist; however, a close look at his activities and ties to McKenna, Long & Aldridge which does lobbying consulting and other legal work, clearly indicates that if he's not a lobbyist, it based on a narrow definition of the term, while he's clearly doing just that on a regular basis like many other losing candidates for office, or people retiring to the private sector, which is routine for politicians.

He also may have participated in vote swapping during the Iowa caucuses, or at least planned to according to the following article:

Caucus-night vote-swapping could tilt Iowa 01/09/2004 By Anne E Kornblut

DES MOINES -- For the first time in decades, a quirk in the Iowa nominating contest on Jan. 19 -- vote-swapping on caucus night -- could determine the outcome of the Democratic presidential contest here, according to advisers for several campaigns who are mapping strategies to swing stray votes in the final hours.

With campaigns required to win at least 15 percent of the voters in each precinct to survive, strategists assume a number of candidates will fall short – freeing their caucus voters to support other campaigns.

Several campaigns are developing ways to swing support in some of the 1,990 precincts on caucus night – to benefit their own candidate or to hurt someone else.

At headquarters for Howard Dean, advisers are working on an automated system that would let precinct captains dial in early tallies. Knowing how Dean is fairing statewide would allow the campaign to advise its supporters to throw Dean votes in some precincts to another candidate.

Where the supporters of the low-performing candidates wind up and whether the leading candidates have spare delegates top throw to other campaigns, depends entirely on how the numbers break in the first round of voting.

Dean voters, for instance. Could be directed to shift to Senator John F. Kerry as part of a strategy to knock Richard A. Gephardt out of contention and create a more competitive race in New Hampshire. Complete article $4.95 4 articles $9.95 unlimited $99.95 or just go to the damn library and get it for free online if they subscribe to it they'll have access to it!

This is just a small fraction of the dirty tricks during the 2004 campaign that took place, or at least those that were actually reported; but most of this routinely falls down the memory hole, since few if any people can keep track of it all. And existing laws about copyright often make it more difficult to research this by charging ridiculous amounts of money to access archived stories like many newspapers now do, including the Boston Globe, which is now owned by billionaire John W. Henry who bought it from the New York Times. Technically they can never completely turn the truth into a commodity; however, by using intellectual property laws, including copyright, to restrict access to an enormous amount of research material they're coming as close as they can get away with. This is one of the media outlets that are no longer part of the six major oligarchs that control over ninety percent of the media, but all the biggest outlets outside of those oligarchs appear to be controlled by multi millionaires or in most cases billionaires, so the truth according to the media is still controlled by a fraction of one percent of the wealthiest people in the country.

This might not seem like strong evidence of intentional dives to many; however, there's plenty of evidence to prove that the strongest contenders for higher office routinely use many other tricks to rig the system so they can cater to their Wall Street donors, which means we shouldn't rule it out. Furthermore there's also an enormous amount of evidence that they have plenty of research on how to manipulate the public that should teach them how to avoid incredibly obvious blunders, yet they keep making them over and over again. There are so many of these major blunders where they should have known better that I can't cite more than a small fraction, but anyone that watches politics on a regular basis has to see them all the time.

A close look at the 2004 Iowa race will turn up many more blunders along with every other race; and his absurd scream only added to that. There's little or no doubt that he psyched himself up for that speech thinking it would be inspiring, but he also had access to some of the best advisers that should have told him that taking it too far would look absurd, which it did.

And efforts to rig the general election may have also taken place, with John Kerry making his share of absurd blunders. George Bush made a massive mistake when he told the terrorist to "Bring it on;" but then instead of taking advantage of it Kerry turned it into his signature line making himself look just as foolish. He also voted for the Iraq war while claiming he opposed it, and was famously caught admitting that "I flipped, I flopped," after it was so obvious that he couldn't deny it. It's hard to imagine how he could have gotten the nomination without an enormous amount of help from the political establishment.

Then there was the allegedly forged "Killian documents" which managed to turn George Bush's record dodging service in Vietnam into a dirty trick that made him look like the victim and made it seem as if all the claims about his war record were false. According to Wikipedia this controversy "first gained widespread public attention during the 2004 presidential campaign;" but this is only partly true. An article from the Intercept W. Was AWOL, But What's "Truth" Got to Do With It? 10/27/2015 goes through the history, or at least part of it, of how it was covered in the 2000 election. Basically a few newspapers, including the Boston Globe and Washington Post covered it, and the New York times minimized it by covering it as if it was uncertain; but the vast majority of television media outlets, where most people get their propaganda, gave it little or no coverage.

The source of these allegedly forged documents was never found, as far as I know, but in the end it worked heavily in George Bush's favor since many people may have dismissed the truth along with the discredited documents. I don't have inside knowledge, but I'm not completely ruling out the possibility that the CIA or some people with training from political dirty tricks forged them with this intention; however it wouldn't have worked without cooperation from the media, making the CIA more likely than a small time dirty trickster. Even though some of the details in these documents were almost certainly false, as well as the documents themselves, most of the story was true.

The list of incredibly bad blunders goes on to many other elections going back decades, including more recent ones which are getting even more insane. In 1988 Dukakis made his own share of blunders like riding in the tank and his unemotional response to the death penalty question if Kitty was murdered, but they seemed more realistic than many other blunders and it wasn't nearly as effective as the Willie Horton ad. In 1995 Dole was declared the inevitable nominee even though he was incredibly unpopular among both national Democrats and many Republicans, but the establishment gave him all the propaganda cover for him even though he was incredibly low in the polls the entire time. Then he made even more blunders like saying that milk could be as addictive as tobacco.

Mitt Romney, who was considered a two time loser in Massachusetts, before he finally managed to win the race for governor, was also an incredibly bad candidate that never had much if any chance of beating Obama, and the polls confirmed this long before he lost as a sacrificial lamb for the Republican's who didn't even seem to be trying to win. I went into this more in Are Cain, Cantor and Romney campaigning for Obama? which focused mainly on their bad responses to the Occupy Wall Street movement, but large portions of their campaign were even worse, including Paul Ryan's attempt to get filmed washing pots even though they were already clean and he got caught red-handed faking it for a photo op.

The 2000 and 2016 elections were probably the most insane ones I have ever seen, and there should be little or no doubt that all the candidates involved, except Bernie Sanders in 2016 had access to good advisers that could have told them how to avoid an enormous amount of incredibly bad blunders. In 2000 it began long before the suppressed voting scandal in Florida, which is what most people remember; I went into this more in The 2000 election revisited. In 1999 the media declared that both Al Gore and George Bush were the inevitable front runners then gave them the obsession coverage to enable this prediction to come true. When John McCain unexpectedly beat George Bush, with his straight talk express tour which seemed very credible, they stooped to one dirty trick after to defeat him, especially in the Southern states where these tricks are much more effective.

After losing it didn't take John McCain long to show that his honest sounding rhetoric during the straight talk express tour was no more sincere than any other political promises, even though he lost the nomination, he demonstrated with his actions in the Senate that he would cave to the establishment getting behind George Bush eventually supporting the Iraq war and many more military activities based on lies.

At the time it's hard to imagine how they could run a more insane campaign than the 2000 election; but that's exactly what they did in 2016, when they obviously rigged the primary for Hillary Clinton and hardly did a good job pretending otherwise. The entire political establishment lined up to endorse Hillary Clinton long before the primaries, with only a couple weak candidates entering the primaries, plus Bernie Sanders, who could have easily beat Trump or most any other Republican if they had won, yet they clearly rigged it for Hillary. At the time I compiled an incredibly long list of news stories about her showing how corrupt she was in Why would anyone consider Hillary Clinton if they knew this? But the political establishment gave these minimal coverage if them mentioned it at all while repeating her deceptive propaganda over and over again. On top of that there were several temper tantrums from her when confronted by Black Lives Matters, or several other people or groups about her obvious corruption.

I also compiled a long list of election irregularities or outright cheating in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? which documented major problems in at least thirteen different states at the time I wrote it; but I'm sure it was higher, and I never added all of the cheating that went on then. Even after all the help she had from the political establishment and media to rig the coverage she still had to cheat even more to get the nomination, and that was before the first batch of E-mail from the DNC or later Pedesta E-mails were released.

It wasn't the Russians that rigged the election for Trump; it was the mainstream media, DNC, and Hillary Clinton!

Hillary Clinton acted as if the presidency was hers for the taking with an incredibly pompous attitude from the beginning! She didn't even bother campaigning much in some of the rust belt states that she took for granted which enabled Trump to win. Then the mainstream media, DNC and Hillary Clinton tried to convince us that by adding more evidence of their epidemic levels of corruption by releasing hacked, leaked or stolen E-mails that Russia is the one rigging the election.

There's absolutely no way Russia could have rigged the election for Trump if the political establishment and media hadn't given him obsession coverage while refusing to cover many other honest candidates, which is routine going back decades, and getting caught cheating over an over again.

Hillary Clinton provided much stronger evidence of a possible intentional dive than Howard Dean, Mitt Romney or Bob Dole!

Now there's an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that they might be planning to do the same thing again by rigging the media coverage for Kamala Harris or which even establishment Democrat takes her place if she collapses because she also has a terrible record! Many of the leading candidates supported by the media have records just as bad.

But why would they do this?

Especially with incredibly big problems that are threatening the country, including Climate Change, many other pollution related problems impacting mainly the poorest people or people in third world countries, and one war base don lies, which among other things like epidemic levels of income inequality and a corrupt health care system is virtually guaranteed to bring about a massive decline in our society.

Are they suicidal? And willing to take the entire planet with them? Or do they believe their own lies?

They have access to better research than the majority of us and better advisers so it's hard to believe their that insane, yet that's the direction they're taking us, and the vast majority of the so-called experts and academics are going along with the program without doing much if anything to bring about the real changes we need to prevent escalating disaster; instead they're enabling this nutty clown pretending to be the president of the United States to play chicken with the survival of the country, or so it seems.

Something else is going on here and simply going along with one obsession du jour after another isn't going to expose it.

Is this the first article of mine you read?

If not, and if the previous ones weren't about reducing violence or progressive politics you might know that I also looked into many other major unsolved mysteries, including how they moved massive megaliths thousands of years ago even though experiments to replicate these moves proved it should be impossible to do with ancient technology.

If there was an unknown advanced intelligence influencing our early development then this is guaranteed to have an enormous impact; and since some of the unexplained phenomena, including crop circles, cattle mutilations, continue to this day, that virtually guarantees that what ever they're doing is ongoing. According to Philip Corso's book The Day After Roswell he shared alien technology with multinational corporations after retrieving crafts from Roswell and other locations going back to the late forties and early sixties, continuing to this day.

Either there's a massive conspiracy to cover this up, or there's a conspiracy to make it seem like it's true when it's not. If it is true then it explains the incredibly rapid advancement of technology over the past five or six decades picking up speed in the last two decades.

In Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy but could it be related to a far-fetched Apocalypse Prophecy or a weak copy of it? during the 2016 elections I pointed out obvious vote rigging back then and also went on to notice that Hillary Clinton had many of the characteristics of the Whore of Babylon from the book of Revelations which seemed like an absurd conspiracy theory, but instead of this theory falling apart one insane thing after another, including the Al Smith dinner where Trump behaved in an incredibly obnoxious manner and Hillary wasn't much better followed by her loss in the election, and much more. Interpretations of the Book of Revelations are quite diverse so if you want to believe or not you can find good reason to do so, but it's hard to completely rule it out when you recognize how many characteristics she shares with the Whore of Babylon, who rode in on "scarlet beast" who turned "against the prostitute," which could be interpreted as being similar to his outrageous behavior demonizing Hillary to beat her, although there was plenty of justification since they're both incredibly corrupt, but this isn't a rational or sincere way of holding a democratic election, which should require fair coverage to all candidates, including many that behave much more civilly and aren't exceptionally corrupt.

This theory still seems far-fetched; however, something incredibly absurd is clearly going on, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that something somewhat close to it might be true, even if there's no way of knowing all the details. If they did share technology with multinational corporations and they're developing it, it may include medical and pharmaceutical technology, and many other things as well, which might mean they're using many people for undisclosed research. Whether or not this is being done with alien technology there is evidence that a lot of this is going on as I pointed out in Researching Poor, Slaves, Prisoners, To Benefit Ruling Class With Alien Technology? and several other articles. If there's something to this then they may be using the public for research in the short run for the long term benefit of everyone; or that might just be the way they justify their actions to themselves, and keep people involved in part of it cooperating. If so they might be planning some efforts to disclose it eventually, if not then they might be leading those only going along with it to believe they will disclose it when it suits their purposes.

However if they really were looking out for our best interests they would be honest about what ever it is that they're doing. If they come up with a version of the "you can't handle the truth" argument then they should be doing what they can to prepare people so they can handle the truth and what ever they're doing now isn't accomplishing that at all; instead they're jumping from one lie after another, with some of them more sophisticated than others.

I've gone into this more in my past articles, and even if there isn't something to this they're still rigging elections by only covering corrupt candidates supported by the commercial media and Wall Street Censored Candidates For President By Mass Media the media only covers a small fraction of the candidates that are running for president. According to Ballotpedia there are 537 candidates running as of February 18 2019 and more are signing on almost every day but the mainstream media doesn't even tell us where to find this list on our own, let alone try to cover more than the highest profile candidates, that mostly collect enormous amounts of money from wealthy donors. Many of them aren't serious candidates, but a lot are more honest. And some of the leading contributors to these campaigns are the same oligarchies covering them pretending to be impartial, even though they've been caught red handed helping one candidate or another over and over again, including when Donna Brazile shared questions with the Hilary Clinton campaign, and many other cases.

None of the candidates can be expected to provide a serious challenge to their oligarchy status controlling the media and rigging coverage for candidates they support, even Bernie Sanders, who I believe is far better than any other candidate they're willing to cover; but even he caved and declined to call out their cheating in 2016 and endorsed Hillary allegedly to prevent Trump from getting elected.

Caitlin Johnstone also raised a few legitimate concerns, although I don't agree with all of them, about Bernie in Six Thoughts On #Bernie2020 02/19/2019. She says he's the candidate most likely to beat Trump, which I agree with and she and her regular readers probably think that he's better than the other establishment candidates, which doesn't even seem close to me. However she's right to express concern that he didn't speak out about election rigging in 2016. Her claims that some people might associate him with phony Russian conspiracies might be partially true, but they're way overblown since these alleged claims that he also has times to Russia have no credibility, and as far as I can tell hardly anyone is paying attention to them, even the mainstream media, who often do try to smear him.

She's also right that we can't rely on any one man, even Bernie Sanders to reform the entire system on his own; he's going to need an enormous amount of grassroots help if he wins to push his agenda through; and in some cases the good issues he might not be inclined to support or can't keep up with will have to be pushed by the grassroots. One of these is standing up to centralized control of the media, which will have to be pushed by grassroots even if Bernie Sanders wins, although he would be much more sympathetic that the candidates supported by the media.

Also if there is something to the UFO hypothesis, whether it's my version or not pushing for disclosure will also have to be done at the grassroots level; Bill and Hillary Clinton along with John Podesta have claimed they support disclosure and would push for it, however when they were in office the did little or nothing about the issue. More importantly, if Philip Corso is right about sharing technology with multinational corporations, they would clearly be the same corporations that supported Podesta's lobbying firm and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

When Obama was elected many thought that because Podesta was part of his transition team he would address the issue but when he started a White House petition to address major issues the voters were concerned about one of the most popular petitions requested disclosure about UFOs they responded by initially increasing the number of signatures required to get a response and when that was overcome easily, they made weak denials often treating the subject with ridicule.



The following are some additional articles about election fraud or other related issues, starting with a few good books on the subject:

Andrew Gumbel "Steal This Vote"

Mark Crispin Miller "Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform"

Mark Crispin Miller "Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008"

Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating?

Gephardt, Dean trade barbs about nasty campaign tactics 02/1/2019 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Dick Gephardt on Thursday accused Howard Dean's camp of illegally sending out-of-state supporters to Iowa to caucus in cities and towns across the state -- an accusation Dean's manager called "ridiculous on its face."

The Democratic Wingman of the Democratic Party 05/21/2016 Howard Dean was once the revolutionary progressive from Vermont. Now, his own PAC is supporting Bernie Sanders despite Dean’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton. For Dean and Sanders, it’s complicated.

The flip-flop candidate: Howard Dean does not preach, balances budgets and believes in commonsense. Though not leftwing enough for some Democrats, the 'odd duck' from Vermont is making waves, writes Jonathan Raban 01/17/2004

Video Games Go to Washington: The Story Behind The Howard Dean for Iowa Game 04/09/2008 Former Vermont governor Howard Dean failed miserably in his bid to become the 2004 Democratic U.S. presidential candidate. Still, he was incredibly successful in changing the way political campaigns of all types are carried out. Dean supporters made extensive use of new media tools such as e-mail, Web sites, and blogs to foster support from the grassroots. Howard Dean was also the first candidate to use a video game as endorsed political speech.

Boston Globe 01/10/2004: “Iowa is a great place for people like me who started out with no money and now have a good message.”

Wikipedia: George W. Bush military service controversy "Controversy over George W. Bush's military service in the Air National Guard was an issue that first gained widespread public attention during the 2004 presidential campaign."

W. Was AWOL, But What's "Truth" Got to Do With It? 10/27/2015

Howard Dean: 'The battle between teachers unions and charter schools is coming to an end' 05/18/2011

Dick Gephardt’s Spectacular Sellout 09/30/2009

Fmr. Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (Now a Lobbyist) Dumps Obamacare Insurer’s Stock 06/19/2017

Howard Dean Net Worth: $4 Million

Howard Dean, Despite Denials, Has Many Ties to Lobbying 01/21/2016

Buyer's Remorse: Why Is Howard Dean Selling Out Single-Payer? 10/16/2017

Howard B. Dean Senior Advisor for Dentons Law Firm

Some of my past articles on aliens or UFOs include Do Aliens own Stock in Monsanto, DuPont, or Microsoft? which also has a complete list of additional articles posted before it, the following are the recent ones posted since it:

Leah Remini Exposing Part Of Scientology, And Aiding Cover-up Of More?

Who's Controlling Oligarchies Dividing The Market? Aliens?

Dude, We've Been In The Rabbit Hole Or Twilight Zone All Along!

Was Pizzagate a CIA PsyOp to dismiss real sex offenders as conspiracies?

An ISIS Wag The Dog Hypothesis Is Still Unlikely But ....