Skip to main content

New Hampshire has no touchscreen voting.  None.  

Every ballot cast in New Hampshire except those few cast by the handicapped is written on a piece of paper.  It's redundant to say this after the previous comment about touchscreen voting, but let's make it clear: in New Hampshire there is a paper trail.  

The Diebold Accuvote-TS has been shown to be a piece of crap.  The Diebold Accuvote-OS, the machine used in New Hampshire, has much of the same hardware and runs much of the same tabulation software, so these machines could conceivably be hacked.  However, the incentive for hacking them is not very great, because unlike with the paperless voting, again, there's the paper trail.  So if there were ever a recount—and there was after the 2004 election, when a survey of New Hampshire voting districts chosen by the Nader campaign showed there was virtually no difference between the scanned tabulation and the hand recount—the malfeasance would be easily discovered.  

Many folks immediately suspect that any election results they found surprising—and whether they know enough about local and statewide voting patterns to be surprised is always a good question—are most easily explained by malfeasance by the Diebold corporation or exploitation of its machines.  There are many problems for these folks who look for the most exotic (and maybe reassuring) explanation for an election result they don't like, but in this case, let's start out with a fairly basic one:  voters in every town in New Hampshire cast their vote on a paper ballot, and in more than half of the towns in New Hampshire, the paper ballots are counted by hand.

Fewer than half the towns in New Hampshire tabulate votes with optical scanners.  More than half the votes cast are counted by optical scanners, as most of the bigger cities and towns—including Manchester, Nashua, Portsmouth, Concord, Claremont, Hanover, Keene and Plymouth—use the scanners.  But more municipalities count by hand.  And as someone relatively well-versed in the voting patterns of New Hampshire, let me tell you there appear to be no discrepancies in the Clinton/Obama/Edwards votes between the towns that tabulate votes by scanning and those that count by hand.  Obama won many of the larger towns—Keene, Hanover, Concord, Portsmouth, Lebanon, Plymouth, Durham.  Clinton won others—Manchester, Nashua, Berlin, Gorham, Claremont.  

There are reasons this makes sense, as I explained in an analysis of the town-by-town results here.  And where there was a strong regional pattern to the results—as in the Monadnock region and the Connecticut River Valley, where Obama did well, or in the bedroom communities of Boston, where Clinton did well—the pattern extended geographically, regardless of whether an individual town used electronic or hand tabulation.  

But ultimately, there's tremendous arrogance and/or ignorance at play when people assume that Hillary Clinton's victory in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary is or might be explained by election fraud.  Has it not occurred to those people who know little or nothing about voting patterns in New Hampshire that the hundreds of staffers on the Obama and Edwards campaigns, who've immersed themselves in past voting data and models of expected vote turnouts for Tuesday, wouldn't these staffers have noticed discrepancies that might warrant a recount?  If Tuesday's results really were the likely result of malfeasance, the Obama and Edwards campaigns would be raising holy hell.  They would be seeking a recount, and investigation of the voting, and they would be doing it because they saw the irregularities in the vote results.  

But there aren't any serious irregularities in the results of Tuesday's Democratic primary.  Clinton won with the same kind of voters that Kerry won with in 2004, in she did it by running strongly in the same exact areas of the state.  Diebold machines don't count the votes cast in many of the towns of New Hampshire, and all votes are cast on a paper ballot.  The 2004 recount showed no problems with the tabulation.  New Hampshire has an excellent reputation for running clean elections.  Election administration is done on a town-by-town basis, so rigging the election would require not just a few well-placed individuals, but a vast conspiracy involving hundreds of people, probably more.  And if there were strange voting patterns, that showed up in discrepancies between towns that tabulated by hand vs those that tabulated the paper ballots with scanners, the rival campaigns would certainly have noticed it and would be protesting the results.

Hillary Clinton won on Tuesday.  She led just about every poll every taken for 360 of the 365 days leading up to the election.  And even when she won, it was only by three percentage points.  This election wasn't rigged.  So please, ignore the "Diebold stole the election" garbage.  

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:34 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

      •  ct Banned? (18+ / 0-)

        ct is the guy who keeps the site running; he better not get banned.

        He did, however, recently make some important code changes on the site.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:56:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If it's been banned (4+ / 0-)

        Why are all these CT diaries floating around?

        And why isn't it mentioned in the FAQ?

        The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

        by Free Spirit on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:02:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  it is in the damn FAQ (5+ / 0-)

          did you read it? It's right here:

          Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", e.g., "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

          It links to an story by kos, where he says this:

          I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.

          I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

          So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.

          This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.

          •  Yes I'm very familiar with both (0+ / 0-)

            And I see nothing about the banning of conspiracy theories in either one.

            The first blockquote says nothing about banning anything at all. It provides guideline for posting conspiracy theories ("the more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof") and for recommending them or not.  Odd if they are banned.

            The second says nothing about banning conspiracy theories, only bullshit conspiracy theories.  Ever since this limited ban was posted, I have watched people who I am sure are as familiar with its wording as I am try to parlay it into a global ban on conspiracy theories. I can only conclude that they seek to protect themselves from having to hear about something they don't want hear, without regard to the amount of supporting evidence. And that's about as far from "reality-based" as you can get.

            The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

            by Free Spirit on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:27:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is one of the most (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Caj

              tortured interpretations I've ever seen. Just willfully misunderstanding plain and clear words.

              Nobody who has any interest in being objective could read that and not understand that pimping conspiracy theories is bannable.

              Oh, and your "interpretation" was flat wrong. Here is kos, in this diary:

              And to be crystal clear (32+ / 0-)

              Anyone who persists with this crap is engaging in unsupported conspiracy theories and violating site policy, a bannable offense.

              by kos on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:53:55 PM PST

              [ Reply to This |Recommend Troll  ]

      •  Show me the hand tabulation/ machine tabulation.. (32+ / 0-)

        ...numbers and I'll stop thinking this "unprecedented" polling failure (in the words of ABC polling chief) had  something to do with Diebold machines.  Really, if you can show that results did not differ between hand and machine tab, I will shut up.

        Also, please don't let your front-page status or whatever you have affect your tone.  "Lunacy"?  Let's talk about other "conspiracies" I've known and loved:  "Psst.  Did you know they're torturing people in secret prisons?  Psst, did you know NSA is monitoring phone and email contacts of Americans."  And so on.

        It's more lunacy to refuse to consider objective explanations because "they wouldn't do that."  

        •  How about you first explain (7+ / 0-)

          why the exit polls matched the announced results?

          •  They didn't (13+ / 0-)

            Chris Matthews announced on Hardball today that the exit polls showed Obama strongly ahead. I'm sure the published exit polls didn't, as published polls are "normalized" to be consistent with the official outcome. But Matthews saw the unpublished polls, at least some of them.

            •  Has anyone in any other campaign (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MajorFlaw

              complained about manipulation? Is there any reason they wouldn't if there were a legitimate reason?

              •  sore loserman anyone? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharon in MD
              •  Gore didn't suggest foul play in Florida (7+ / 0-)

                in fact, he suppressed the NAACP who were gathering evidence of racially skewed disenfranchisement. Kerry did not fight for Ohio (where fraud in the recount has been legally proven), the Greens and the Libs did. Dems not fighting back is a very general problem, (and one the blogosphere and this site clearly do not understand well) so the lack of fight back by Dems, especially against other Dems, doesn't say much. Not saying that constitutes proof, just that it is not very good contrary evidence either, based on recent Dem behavior.

                •  No evidence at all (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  wishingwell, SeattleLiberal

                  And actually, Gore took his demand for a recount all the way to the Supreme Court.

                  But don't let the facts get in the way of your Clinton derangement.

                  •  I said "foul play" (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gpclay, JayDean, donailin, Hope08

                    Yes, Gore demanded a partial recount. But what I said is that he did not allege foul play. If you want to argue that he shouldn't have, fine, but pretending I said something other than I did is intellectually dishonest. The selective disenfranchisement of blacks from the voter rolls was covered by Salon at the time and later, and Gore did not pursue it. FWIW, I don't think Gore had enough evidence to yell fraud, but he didn't pursue what he had, so lack of pursuit by the campaign proves nothing. And there was something there; the NAACP won a large settlement over it.

                    In any case, I don't think Obama should pursue this unless the case becomes much stronger. The responses in this thread show the prevailing attitude towards allegations of this sort. And there's not much at stake. Obama got just as many delegates as Millary, so all Hill got was momentum and front-runner status, which will be hard for her to maintain, especially if they aren't real in the first place. I also thought the Crying Game sufficed as an explanation of Hillary's win. I was moved by it, and I think it was rehearsed. In fact, I expected Hill to do well and perhaps win because of that and am kicking myself for not posting on it. I still lean toward that explanation, but realize I could be wrong.

                    •  At the risk of getting pretty far afield (0+ / 0-)

                      several things are clear about Florida in 2000.

                      One is that Gore DID challenge vote counts.  He did so in certain counties.

                      Two is that he didn't ask for a full recount, though he was entitled to it.  All the evidence suggests that he (well, Bill Daley, his campaign manager) feared he would lose a full recount, and preferred to take a narrow legalistic approach instead.

                      Third is that he would have won if he had asked for a full recount.

                      I still see Gore as a very cynical politician for that decision, in some ways hoisted on his own petard.  Unfortunately, you and I and the rest of the country were also hoisted on that petard.

                      •  Gore called for a full state recount. (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gpclay, TLS66, NeuvoLiberal, IL dac

                        Unfortunately, there was no way in Florida law to demand a full state recount.  The law required him to go through a separate process for each county and give reasons for the request.

                        I'm surprised this falsehood about how Gore could have demanded a full state recount is still floating around.  He could not.

                      •  Florida recounts info (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gpclay, TLS66, ca democrat, hannahlk

                        Posting this up here mainly as a reference for discussion pertaining to this subject in this diary. The link given in (2) below is a reference for Avedon's direct response above.

                        Facts about FL'2K

                        1. Gore fought for 35 days: link.
                        1. The rightwing meme "Gore is/was cherry picking districts" is false. The Gore campaign asked the Bush campaign to join them in requesting a statewide recount which the latter refused. This link provides the details.
                        1. This CNN poll shows that 79% of Americans wanted Gore to concede should the SC ruling go against him. link.
                        1. After the verdict, likely signaling that the establishment was abandoning Gore, DNC Chair Rendell publicly called on Gore to concede: link.
                        1. Daschle and other senate Democrats had a power-sharing agreement with senate Republicans which was the reason that no Democratic senator signed on to join the CBC in challenging the certification of Florida's electoral college votes (contrary to some impressions seemingly left by Fahrenheit 9/11 movie's opening scene). excerpt.
                        1. Democrats.com analysis: Gore won Florida.

                        Gore fought until no recourse was left.

                        For further reading, please see: 2000 Election synopsis.

                        •  Nuevo, you're close (0+ / 0-)

                          And I should have outlined the full story in my first post.

                          Eventually, Gore did fight for a full recount.  But at the normal deadline for filing for a recount, he sought only a recount for two counties.  Had he sought a full recount within the deadline, it would have been automatic and there would have been no need to pursue the court case at all.  But he declined to do that, fearing that he would lose the full recount.  

                          And yes, when the newspaper consortium undertook a full analysis, they proved he would have won a full recount.

                      •  I never said he didn't (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        IL dac

                        I said he didn't allege foul play. Obama would be alleging foul play, not just disfunctional chads. That's a serious matter, and Obama won't and shouldn't go there without more substantial backing, though I think the media should be required to published their unaltered exit polls (in all elections, not just this one).

                        For that matter, I don't think it helps Obama to have surrogates talking about Bradley effects and casting doubt on the authenticity of the tears (though I do not think they were authentic). It undermines his image of integrity and being above normal politics. Just move on.

                        To return to the main point, it was argued that the fact that the Obama campaign has not alleged fraud is strong evidence against fraud. In fact, it would be a very poor move for Obama to do that, even if the Fraud was real, and if he made the allegation and couldn't prove it(regardless of whether it was disproved), it would finish him, whereas he's far from finished now. This gives him much more to lose than to gain. So the fact that Obama has not alleged fraud proves nothing.

                  •  If by "no evidence at all" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gravitylove

                    you referring to my "not very strong contrary evidence" (and what else could you be referring to?), you are arguing against your own position, as you are the one claiming that the lack of conspiracy claims from an affected campaign is evidence against the conspiracy theory. If you want to play, you really should nail the basic logic a little better.

                  •  'no evidence at all' (0+ / 0-)

                    Yet.

                    There's a much larger story, however, that's still to be told about that election.  

                    Yes, there's 'no evidence at all' besides the myriad questions raised in aftermath of that fiasco.  

                    But for those unwilling to allow the possibility of new evidence from the certainty that it's all been said and fear of raising 'the wrong questions', the story would never get told.

                    We've already got the mainstream media to lock out the message that something seems wrong with the machine.  After nearly a decade of "right", are we so ready to paint the color "left" onto that filter?  

              •  Yes. There is. (0+ / 0-)

                complained about manipulation? Is there any reason they wouldn't if there were a legitimate reason?

                Yes, there is. The costs of complaining and being wrong are too high. It's only the second test in the nation and Obama really did quite well, and he's still ahead in delegates, plus the "front runner" mantle isn't all it's cracked up to be. In fact, in delegate count the election was a tie. Obama and HillBill, Inc. each got 9 delegates out of New Hampshire.

                No one is ever going to challenge this election because it's not worth it.

            •  Chris Matthews (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gpclay, Caj, Native Light

              sees and knows so many interesting things that elude others.

          •  If the CNN exit polls... (10+ / 0-)

            ...were raw numbers, then that would be a piece of evidence on the "no vote flipping" side.  I don't know if they are raw or "weighted"--as exit poll numbers were in 2004 to make GWB-Kerry exit polls match the announced vote count.  Edison/Mikofsky explanations for why they weighted the raw exit poll numbers this way and why exit polls were suddenly so off were as weak as the "Michael Whouley effect" or whatever ridiculous explanations you are peddling.

            Look, why do you trust Diebold on this?  You're a smart person.  You should know it doesn't take a "conspiracy of hundreds" to do this.  A couple technicians, maybe just one.  These same machines have been hacked publicly in just such a manner.  Please use your critical thinking skills, open your mind and look at the situation scientifically.  

            And please don't blog about things you aren't fully informed on--vote fraud and computers is obviously one of them.  An optical scan machine is just as easy to tamper with as a touch-screen machine.

            You're calling people with much more information than yourself "lunatics."  These are generally people who study the issue, not crazies or fanatics.  Climate-change people have been branded "loonies" for years.  Also, it's the GOP's favorite slur on liberals, if you recall.  So it seems you're falling to the level of your adversaries when you don't agree with something.  

            Finally, who's following the paper trail or calling for a hand recount in a Demo primary?  Right, no one, as expected.

             

            •  Ahem (4+ / 0-)

              Finally, who's following the paper trail or calling for a hand recount in a Demo primary?  Right, no one, as expected.

              And why do you think this is? Could it be because the other candidates are satisfied that there was no fraud?

              Nah, Hillary paid off everyone!!!!

              •  Or because it'd be too embarassing to recount (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                andgarden, Buckeye Terry

                Because the hand recount would likely PROVE no fraud.

                The Oily Osmond believes Native Americans are a tribe of Jews, and you're a bigot if you question his religion.

                by overlander on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:09:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'm seeing though---this a.m. on msnbc---- (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gravitylove, dotdot

                they're starting to dance around this issue.  Just disbelief about the outcome----as they had been there for a week, watching events, talking to the public, Obama's events overflowing and filled with excitement, Clinton's event even the night before half-filled and mostly with Mass. people, and every single poll showing Obama win, all being told during the election broadcast that Obama was going to win, exit poll results in hand.  Starting to question, dancing around it, saying something without actually saying it.

                •  Ron Paul might pay for recount (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gravitylove

                  some Paul supporters are already collecting funds but maybe his actual campaign would fund it as they have the money.  Supporters have already found "disappeared" Paul votes and they aren't dreaming it up that the Republican party has tried to keep him out of debates.  If he'd beat Giuliani, that would have been big news.  

              •  kucinich has just officially requested a recount (0+ / 0-)

                you can google it

                "The Meek Will Inherit The Earth" -8.13/-7.03

                by donailin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:23:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  exit poll released before race called for clinton (7+ / 0-)

              Nonsense as usual. Here you go. Here is an article from USAToday on the exit polling announced before clinton even won the thing. So, even if the adjustments story is true, they couldnt have done it until the near final counts were available. It clearly shows clinton with a 1% lead. In such a close race, exit polling cant be any more accurate.

              exit poll showing clinton lead

              The obama crowd has really become disgusting on this site. They will say anything and do anything to get their candidate elected. They do every dirty tactic they accuse clinton of doing, including smearing her 24/7, calling her names only republicants do, using republican talking points on her and forming cliques and co-ordinating attacks on hillary and to put up non-stop obamamania diaries on the rec list. So far I was not inspired by any of the top tier candidates and didnt quite care if any of them were nominated. The obama crowd is nearly pushing me to vote for clinton, if it ever gets that far and Im even considering sending money to her campaign. Heck I might even knock on doors for her if this absolute wingnutosphere behavior continues from this crowd. Although Obama doesnt inspire me, I thought may be he inspired others to do good. But if this garbage is what he inspires in his supporters, then it is really scary that he inspires anyone at all. Heck the guy talks about uniting dems and repubs, how about uniting dems first or at least not constantly maligning one of your own 24/7 and doing every dirty trick on the book. The irony is that a few months from now, the same crowd will be shouting from the roof how mean the repubs are to dems. If we can slit the throat one of our own every day, why wont they. And they wont be anymore mean than what I have seen on this site during this primary season. I guess partisan progressive blind faith driven crowd is just as bad as the wingnutosphere. And to think this crowd is what is going to bring about unity in the country and clean up politics in this country. The irony cant be understated

              •  That exit poll shows Obama ahead, 39-38! (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gravitylove, dotster, forgore

                ...very strange to base your argument on a link that contradicts it.  

                •  See rest of my posts on exit polling strength (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dvd Avins, Native Light, Marcus Graly

                  39-38, no matter who ultimately wins, is too close to call given the methodology of the exit polling.  The only thing you can say statistically about it is that it was a close race - it was.

                  I also might point out that the exit polls were completely off from the regular polling that so many people are using to justify their outrage.  Obama looked like a shoe-in on those polls, but the exit polls show a different trend.

                  Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

                  by Phoenix Rising on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:56:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  SEE THE MACHINE/HAND-COUNT DIFFERENCE HERE: (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gravitylove, CIndyCasella

                    New Hampshire numbers -- discrepancy

                    Sorry i'm shouting, and sorry it's a Ron Paul site of some type, but if these numbers are right, we can start talking about more solid things.  Obama lost 3+ percent from hand to machine, while Hillary gained 5 percent.  Something there, you think?  

                    We call that the "Diebold" 8%.  This might show us that while Hillary would have been close with all her effects, it would have been about the 5-6% difference polls showed the night before.

                    •  carefully look at large town tables (0+ / 0-)

                      If you carefully look at large town tables (towns with 1500 votes or more) she has a deficit : -4% compared to hand counts. Obama has +4.5% compared to hand counts. So given that this category by far has the highest total votes, this will make a humongous difference in the final tally. So if you want a conspiracy theory for hand count vs diebold you should be looking at Obama's 36% not hillary's 39%. If your theory is right, then Obama got a big boost making his losing marging a smaller one than what it should have been.

                      But Im not the one believing in any of this CT nonsense. But at least be consistent and admit it is Obama's total that looks suspicious, if your hand vs machine count theory holds.

                      •  You really should stop trying to use stats! (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gravitylove, forgore

                        Seriously.  This is your second big error in three posts.  Look, if about 80% of Obama and Hillary's votes were machine-counted, and if she averaged a 5% gain in machine-counted over that 80%, then it doesn't matter whether that happened in large, medium, or x-small towns.  The point is the average.  Same goes for Obama's 3% loss.  Is that clear enough?  

                        I think the problem that's getting you is the extremely small sample for large-town hand counts.  See, there's not enough in large towns for the comparison to be meaningful.

                        Good eyes, though.

                        •  learn math 101 before trying stats (0+ / 0-)

                          Let me leave aside your complete lack of basic math understanding and not even bother to address your cluelessness on stats. Where do you get off with 2 errors in 3 postings. start with basic counting first! The first error was a synatic error in typing Hillary 39 instead of Obama 39. I guess that is stats in your world. But then again you have shown you dont know what stats is.

                          But even if we assume for a second you know something about distributions and sample sizes, you are pulling the sample sizes and sampling related quantification out of you know where, because its not in any of those tables. What is in those tables is simple vote counts and %s per category. [I dont know what average he talks about in the first place. It doesnt make any sense. This entire line of analysis is asinine. But thats for another post, if Im insane enough to spend time on this garbage analysis they have done] This guy's entire thesis is that hillary clinton has higher % of votes in machine count vs hand count based purely on votes tabulated on the tables. Not any other statistical measure either reported on the tables or implied. Comprendo? Now lets do the simple arithmetic calculations that can clearly demonstrate where you displayed very poor math understanding, not to speak of stats at all.

                          For small towns:

                          machine: total = 5799; clinton = 2167(37%); obama = 2032 (35%) [just a ratio of each over 5799, no sample size, distribution and none of that nonsense]

                          hand count: total = 37309; clinton=12549(34%); obama = 14771(40%); ratios again

                          Now if we force handcount(%) = machine count(%)then

                          clinton machine count will change to = 5799*0.34 = 1971[not quite, since the total machine count for small towns will change, but what the heck it wont matter in the final analysis and it is insane to spend any further time on their piece of non-anlaysis to show what Im trying to show] a paltry 200 votes less (-200)

                          obama machine count will change to: 5799 *0.4 = 2319; a paltry 300 votes more (+300)

                          you get the picture. now do the same for medium and large:

                          medium hill machine count ~~15000 (-2000)
                          medium obama machine count ~~16000 (+1600)

                          large hill machine count ~~79400 (+7000)
                          large obama machine count ~~56880 (-8000)

                          Now I dont think I have to add all the +/- above to show you that Hillary has about 5000 votes more and obama about 6000 votes less. An advantage of 11000 votes for Hillary. If you dont get this by now, no further hope for you. Pls pls learn basic arithmetic. just +, -, % would do.

                •  err... I meant to say Obama has 39% (0+ / 0-)

                  You are right. I meant to say Obama leads by 1%. But when the race is too close to call it is hard to get it right, particularly given that their voter turn out model and distributions were apparently screwed up due to record turnout. I did see another one that showed clinton with a higher percentage. I am too lazy to locate it now. But here is a boston globe article that mentions clinton was ahead in exit polls, without giving numbers.

                  But when exit polls showed Clinton ahead in a closer-than-expected race, Wallace said, it was clear that the widely predicted, sure-thing Obama win was in doubt

                  reference to clinton with exit poll lead in the article

                •  Right on, Mr.Clue! (0+ / 0-)

                  The Clinton supporters are very loyal but remind me of sports fans, defending their team even no matter what.

                  •  no, more like people can do simple arithmetic (0+ / 0-)

                    Well,

                    Look at the calculations (just divisions and additions, nothing fancy. Mr Clue as it turns out, actually does not have a clue about where stats is relevant where simple arithmetic will do). They clearly show that hillary got less votes not more, according to this insane theory. Apparently simple math is out of reach for some Obama blind faith crowd. And by the way this complete disgusting throat slitting of hillary is definitely driving me to support her. and probably others as well. Keep doing this, Hillary is the one who is going to benefit from this

                    •  Why Do You Think This is Obama People? (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't see any of the stooooopid coming from people I recognize as Obama partisans.  I see it mostly coming from conspiracy mavens who think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, and some people who just hate Clinton.  

                      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:17:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There you go again with name-calling... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...why would you do that?  And a maven?  I don't believe in UFOs, aliens, etc.  Putting "everything" in quotation marks doesn't make it true, my earnest friend.  Nor do I hate Clinton.  It's not about who's "team" one is on.      

                        The point is not to be a partisan, but to support pragmatic policy and the objective truth.  I'm sorry you're not able to see that, because obviously you have some intelligence.  

          •  HAND-COUNT / MACHINE-COUNT DISCREPANCY!!! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            patginsd, gravitylove

            If these numbers stand up we have our first evidence of fraud.  Hillary was something like 9% favored by machines.  Obviously, demographics will be used to explain this away (you see, Obama does better in rural areas...or something).  

            These numbers have to be verified by a website without Ron Paul's name anywhere on it, but still, if they are correct, then those of us claiming this deserves a MUCH closer look just got a boost.  

            •  pls see above and stop spoutting this (0+ / 0-)

              As I said above, if you look at the large town tables Hillary has 4% less in machine count and Obama has 4.5% more in machine count. This category has a total of 184000 votes by far the highest of all tables. If your theory is right, by simple calcuations Obama got ~3000 votes more than he should have due to machine count. And hillary got ~3000 votes less than she should have due to machine count and therefore a total of 6000 vote disadvantage for Hillary. Something like another 2% difference for her victory!

              •  See above for where you went wrong (0+ / 0-)

                the key is in the very small sample size for hand-counts in large towns.  It makes the comparison meaningless there.  I'll go into it more tomorrow, but my post above should give you an idea of your error.

                •  well, ditto. :-) (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Buckeye Terry

                  Pls dont embarass yourselves by calling other's math/stats capabilities to question. And as I illustrate above, this whole exercise is just simple ratio calculation and addition. None of the fancy stats calculations of any kind at all. And by the way I can teach you a thing or two in advanced stats, but then again you have to make progress on basic arithmetic first. Can we call of this stupid conspiracy theory now. The numbers just simply stare at you and they tell you how asinine this whole line of attack really is. Oh brother, the apparent college educated crowd that supports obama really need to start with middle school education first.

                  •  None of that you just wrote... (0+ / 0-)

                    was any kind of rebuttal, friend, just a lot of mumbling.  Talk about the numbers or let it go.    

                    Can you explain why Clinton gained 5+% points in machine counted precincts, while Obama lost 3+% and all other candidates were 1% or much less?

                    •  DId you see the calculations above at all? (0+ / 0-)

                      Look my friend,

                      I did the simple arithmetic above for you and showed that according to the very table you are propagating, the total vote count for Hillary should be more, not less and it will be less for Obama not more. You need to get the simple arithmetic right, before you talk about stats as I show above. I have neither the time nor the patience to repeat all of it in every part of the thread. This requires no sample size, distribution and any stats knowledge at all. Just simple add, and divide skills. Look above again. My calculations match your table and finally I show you what the changes for each category would be and what the change in the overall vote tally above. Consider your theory utterly debunked.

                      Jeez, do you not see the calculations above or are you pretending not to?

          •  Where were the exit polls reported? (0+ / 0-)

            I didn't see them anywhere.

        •  I Suppose it Would Kill You To Follow a Link? (7+ / 0-)

          You know, like the one provided in this post, to my post from earlier today?

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:11:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  can YOU show (9+ / 0-)

          that they did differ?  Or that there is any sign of fowl play?

          Couldn't POSSIBLY be that the Clinton camp had a better staff, with more NH experience, and therefore a better GOTV effort that helped her win the denser populated parts of the state... could it?

        •  Space aliens must exist (5+ / 0-)

          because nobody has given undisputed proof that they don't.

        •  I don't want a hand recount. Why would anyone? (4+ / 0-)

          It's only going to prove that this particular NH Diebold system works, and that fact will weaken the broader, legitimate complaints about Diebold touchscreens. Leave it alone, walk away, and channel your scepticism to elections with no paper trails.

          The Oily Osmond believes Native Americans are a tribe of Jews, and you're a bigot if you question his religion.

          by overlander on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:50:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Do you know what we have (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          N in Seattle, taylormattd, evanaj

          about the secret prisons and NSA monitoring? Credible evidence, admission from the Administration they exist, hearings, witnesses, a Congressional fight to clear Telecommunications for not asking for warrants.

          Can the machines be hacked? Sure. Should we work on fixing that? Again, yes.

          Now, about the 9/11 and "the NH primary was fixed" "theories"...

          Don't make me use my "special nerd powers" on you.

          by SeattleLiberal on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:26:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Paper versus electronic counties. (10+ / 0-)

          On BradBlog, they link to this page -- http://ronrox.com/... -- which has the vote totals by township, along with the voting method (electronic or paper).

          One basic question is whether paper-voting towns produced different results from electronic-voting towns. Of course, town size correlates strongly both with voting method and the Clinton/Obama ratio. So I took the numbers above and did basic matching using the only data I had, total votes, which I presumed correlated with town size, and thus (hopefully) with other important demographic characteristics. That is, I took the 91 towns that voted electronically and matched each one (using matchit in R) with a similarly sized paper-voting town, and then compared the vote percentages for Clinton and Obama in those two populations. The results?

          ....................Cl ...... Ed ...... Ob
          Electronic.... 39.2%..17.5%..35.8%
          Paper ......... 38.5%..18.0%..36.1

          Ie, the two voting types seem to have produced nearly identical results. Of course, more demographic data to match on would be nice, but I think this puts a big burden of proof on the doubters.

        •  Bravo - and ACCUVOTE is made by Diebold (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gravitylove, forgore

          The ACCUVOTE counting machines are made by guess who?

          Diebold.

          D I E B O L D.

          Here is the exit poll:
          http://www.pollster.com/...

          It is funny to see the pundits scrambling on TV trying to explain why Hillary won the NH vote, despite losing BIG in the exit polling.

          It was the women!  The older people!  The Martians!  Ron Paul people!

          Yeah yeah that's why the exit polls are so different from "actual" results.

          But lets not talk about it as long as our candidate keeps on winning...

          Did you catch WHEN the exit polls stopped jelling with the actual votes?

          Kerry/Bush.

          The first time Diebold machines started to count votes.

          And funny enough, the strange trend of exit polls being completely wrong continues apace...

          But pssssst!
          It is a nutty conspiracy theory, and all who say this need to be censored and their diaries deleted.

          •  There is a lot that is inaccurate in this post (0+ / 0-)

            and americangoy has acknowledged some of it elsewhere.

            I want to point out that Diebold in its various corporate guises has been making vote-counting equipment for much longer than since 2004.

            And that the things amgoy is pointing to as exit polls are actually pre-election polls.  All the circumstantial evidence suggests the exit polls showed a close race.  Hundreds of reporters had access to the raw data, and they are not asking about any anomalies.

            •  there ARE anomalies (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cyber Kat, media whores

              here:

              http://ronrox.com/...

              going to keep posting this until I'm blue in the face.  an irregularity between hillary and obama's hand count and machine count numbers is HUGE.  specially one that favors her by 8%.  demographics?  give me a break.  

              and reporters are wondering aloud why exit polls were wrong--Friedman and Tweety are two mentioned here, nobody's favorites but just the same.

              •  This stuff reminds of 2004 Florida (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                americangoy

                Where people got all worked up with OMG THEY HACKED THE OPTICAL SCAN because there was a large discrepancy between registered Dems and votes for Kerry in counties that used those machines, ignoring the fact that those were mostly in the Panhandle (ie. South Alabama) where, like the rest of the deep South, votes for the Dem presidential candidate have been less than the number registered for years.

                Has it occurred to you that they use hand counting in small towns and machine counting in cities?  You say Demographics couldn't possibly account for an 8% discrepancy, but in most elections the difference between rural voters and urban voters is larger than 8%.  Clinton had more support in the cities, Obama in the countryside, it's as simple as that.  

          •  That thing you linked to is not an Exit Poll... (0+ / 0-)

            It's an amalgamation of the last five polls taken before the election.

            Grand Rapids Michigan | -5.75, -5.54

            by TooFolkGR on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:47:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Why do you think not? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cyber Kat, Templar

          First, I don't think the vote was rigged.

          Second, why do you think it's not possible? Because it would have been the Clinton machine that did it? Because they're Democrats? The Diebold scan tabulators are in all the larger districts, particularly in southern New Hampshire, and particularly in districts that Mrs. Clinton won by larger margins than would be expected by the exit polls.

          Now if this was a Republican candidate, many of the readers here would be crying bloody murder to have some hand tabulation, but the truth is that there has been no hand verification of the voting machines in those districts and in all likelihood there never will be, since no one of authority to do so will ever challenge the vote.

          So, I don't believe the machines are to blaim, particularly because in my own district the folks who keep tabs on the machines are all Republicans and no local Republican is going to take that big a risk to keep Hillary's campaign on track (although I'm sure she's who they'd like to run against). I do however get a little perturbed with people who automatically dismiss the notion that rigging the machines is impossible.

          Cheers,

          Travis Stark
          Accidental Wisdom

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            Second, why do you think it's not possible? Because it would have been the Clinton machine that did it?

            I think it's not possible for several logistical reasons.
               
            First:  unlike touchscreen voting, tabulator results can always be checked.  One cannot hack the vote undetectably.  The best someone can do is create a discrepancy that will be exposed if someone bothers to check.
                 
            The second reason is that any conspiracy to hack enough tabulators to swing the results so dramatically would be a significant operation with a huge risk of discovery.  
             
            There simply isn't a way to do it without a substantial risk of being exposed, simply by anyone deciding to take a look.  

            Of course, you also have the loathsome allegation underneath this, that one of the political campaigns is basically a criminal organization willing to hack computers and commit widespread fraud to steal an election.

        •  DHinMI is right (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DHinMI, ophymirage, Clem Yeobright, mayim
          NH is really unique.  Individual towns run everything.  Its the senior citizens who run the polling places, and they are often the pillars of the community.  In my town, they know the voters by sight.  You go to check in where they find your name on the list.  You get a paper ballot, go to the booth and use a pencil to put an "x" in the box next to your candidate.  Then you take the ballot to the check out area, where they put the ballot in an acient old wooden box  (in my town it is dated 1890). The box is unlocked at the end of the day and the votes are counted by the respected town elders while being witnessed by other people, including volunteers from various candidates.  The numbers are then called in to a central place.  All these numbers can then be verified on the web.  I'm quite confident the system is transparent enough that any significant attempts to manipulate the system would be caught.  I DO believe there was a lot of fraud in 2000 and 2004 in Ohio and Florida, but NH is truly OK.  And I'm generally paranoid and suspicious.

          "I don't want to name names, but they know themselves." Koffi Annan

          by Sue in NH on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:21:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Um... the first line of the post is (0+ / 0-)

          NH has no touchscreen voting. That means NH has NO Diebold machines.

          I am a NH resident, and I seem to remember our legislature voting overwhelmingly to require paper trails for all elections. I haven't fact-checked this this morning, but I am pretty sure. Diebold machines would be very unwelcome here.

          NH voters simply voted in an unexpected fashion, and that's it. The polling was flawed, and the media were way too eager to stick a fork in Hillary Clinton.

          Why, just because the Clintons happened to be involved, does there have to be a conspiracy? The town-by-town results are very consistent with expectations. Hillary did not win every town, and in some towns she even came in third behind Edwards. I don't need to repeat the analysis, because DHinMI has done a great job with it.

          The Clintons are not trustworthy, but that does not automatically mean there was a conspiracy. Once again, the media were just STUPID.

          •  I think the surprise is easily explained (0+ / 0-)

            there were a variety of factors.
            First among them to me was that the poles showed Barack so far ahead, many of my friends decided to vote for other candidates just to give them support because they did not think Obama needed their vote. McCain got a few votes I know of  that way, as did Edwards and Hillary.  I really do think that the news of the poles really did influence people this time because of the unusual circumstances of this wide open election, and the fact so many of us are independents and therefore can choose to vote for anyone.  I even considered a vote for McCain, in an effort to beat Romney.  In the end I voted for Barack because I think he is really good, but others made a different choice, because they already "knew" Barack was going to win.

            I think we should ban all reports of poles for the week previous to the vote.  It would help make things more fair all around.

            "I don't want to name names, but they know themselves." Koffi Annan

            by Sue in NH on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:44:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oops (0+ / 0-)

          I should've said NH has no Diebold touchscreen machines, and those are the machines that seem to be the most unreliable. The optical scan machines haven't given any problems.

          In the 2006 midterm elections, a local women's political group sponsored and staffed paper recounts in several towns, just to be sure the scanning machines were accurate. They were.

          •  Diebold op-scans are hackable (0+ / 0-)

            I should've said NH has no Diebold touchscreen machines, and those are the machines that seem to be the most unreliable. The optical scan machines haven't given any problems.

            Your op-scan machines are famously portrayed in the documentary "Hacking Democracy", in which Finnish computer expert Harri Hursti showed that these very same machines are hackable.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

            by gravitylove on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:02:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Heh (0+ / 0-)

            The optical scan machines haven't given any problems.

            Clearly you know very little about the issue of election integrity.  You know nothing about the problems that have been encountered with the various voting systems in recent years, including the systems used in your own elections.  You don't even know your own election law.

            I live in all optical-scan county.  I love our optical scans. I even lobbied in support of optical scans for my state. But I didn't do so in blind ignorance.

            There have been plenty of problems with optical scans. These problems can be addressed, but when citizens don't even bother to look for, much less evaluate, data available on the reliability and security of their own voting machines, it is unlikely that they will be.

            The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

            by Free Spirit on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 05:34:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  hand-count / machine count ANOMALY!! favoring Hil (0+ / 0-)

        ...of 8%.  So it's conspiracy theory to want to know why Diebold machine gave Hillary 5+ percent against the hand-count, and took 3+ percent from Obama?

        Note, none of the other candidates' total varied between counting methods by more than 1%.

        NH primary machine count - hand count discrepancy

        (sorry this is a Ron Paul site, but if the numbers are right, they're right)

        you guys should ban yourselves.  DHinMI, this is the kind of statewide analysis I was looking for when we first started talking about this hours ago, and here it is.  Are you ready to amend/correct your front-page diary?

        •  If that's a discrepancy, then what about IA? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HudsonValleyMark

          Remember the Iowa caucuses that happened just last week?

          Remember how Iowa returns initially showed a huge lead for Edwards with a fraction of precincts reporting, how that margin stayed pretty consistent, then in the space of about 10 minutes Edwards and Obama switched places as the rest of the state returns poured in?
           
          [I remember because in those 10 minutes I shut down my laptop and opened it again.  It took me a while to even notice the change in rank.]
             
          Obviously that had nothing to do with electoral fraud.  That's just a run-of-the-mill phenomenon when you compare a small population of small precincts to a statewide tally.

          Now look at the totals on this web page.  You're comparing about a fifth of the population against the rest of the state, and that fifth is demographically different.  It is almost exactly the kind of "anomaly" we saw in Iowa, and nobody considered that to be evil puzzling evidence of a criminal act.

          To call this a "discrepancy" is embarrassing.  

        •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

          "to want to know why Diebold machine gave Hillary 5+ percent against the hand-count, and took 3+ percent from Obama"

          What on earth were you thinking?

          Are you assuming that scanners are randomly scattered throughout the state of New Hampshire? or what?

        •  NFS, Mr. Clue (0+ / 0-)

          The kossaks need to GET a clue. Democracy is being hacked. Get used to it. Do something about it.

          Want more solid evidence? Check into the BRAD BLOG once a day and he will dig it up for you, without using Ron Paul's web site.

          Kucinich had demanded a recount. Is he now, also, a conspiracy theorist? Pull your collective head out of the sand (or whatever) and get with the program.

          California has banned computer voting. Do you think maybe there's a reason why?

          I bumped into Markos at a local political event, lately, and suggested that Debrah Bowen should run against Nancy Pelosi. Markos didn't think that was a good idea. He said, "Why would Bowden sink a blossoming political career?" Then he went on to tell me that Bush was going to bring down the entire Republican party with him. That was his argument against impeachment. It sucks.

          I thought that sounded like Rove and his "permanent Republican majority." It won't happen. But why does Bowden have such a splendid blossoming career ahead of her, anyway?

          Because she is California's Secretary of State who decertified computer voting. That's why.

          Republicans are desperate. They realize what may happen to them, in terms of law enforcement, if a Democrat takes the White House. They think Hillary will activate their base and maybe give them the presidency. Or else Hillary's people did the hacking themselves, which is always possible. What those people fail to realize, though, is that more than half the population is female, and when those women get into that voting booth, they will have the opportunity to vote for the first woman president in history.

          But back at the point, don't you think we should maybe count the ballots before announcing a winner? I'm just saying . . .

      •  CS not CT (0+ / 0-)

        Election tampering was around before Diebold, that's for sure.  A hand recount of at least the largest counties would seem to be common sense in this case.  It will probably show that the count is correct... but why not?

        The facts here:

        ** Obama was expected to win.  Polls (even the campaigns' internal polls) are in Obama's favor.  He was getting huge crowds, larger than Clinton's.

        ** Initial, unadjusted exit polls show Obama winning by 5-8 points or so.

        ** Obama won the hand-counted counties by about the expected margin... more than offset by his big losses in machine counted counties.

        ** The result is totally unexpected.  A Clinton win.

        **  The loss for Obama stopped what may have turned into an unstoppable freight train.

        **  There are a number of possible explanations, including that many people decided on the last day... not accounted for in the pre-election polls.

        BUT you've got those exit polls showing a Clinton loss and Obama win.

        A hand recount (or partial recount at the very least) seems to just be common sense.  And quickly, before the ballots are lost in a fire, or something (wasn't it coffee spilled on the ballots in Ohio?).

        Lots of Americans don't believe their votes are being counted correctly, so why not make them feel better?

        Common sense!

    •  enough with the "this hurts the site" meme. (7+ / 0-)

      seeing wide variances in exit polling v. voting results is what exit polls are DESIGNED to do.

      •  There WEREN'T Any! (6+ / 0-)

        The exit polls had it too close too call.  It ended up being 3 points.

        What are you talking about?

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:31:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  where's the data? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cyber Kat

          i want to see it, and contemplate it.  i can't find it.

          it shows, so i'm told, the same percentages as polling going into the primary, showing obama as a clear winner.  so i'd like to see the data.  no one has produced it in its raw form that i've seen, but if anyone could direct me, why, i'd be ever so grateful.  instead, i get opinions of others with cherry-picked percentages.  not good enough.

          i'd like to see it all for myself, but i'll tell you this:  exit polling is our safeguard against fraud.  i am not willing to throw that out as one of our main tools for voter integrity because of how it sounds to you.  that's another 2004 tactic i refuse to accept again - being, the wholesale trashing of polling data in favor of skewed voter results.

          so.  if you're able to link to the NH polling data, that would be so nice, and i'll come back armed with better facts.  i'm willing for facts to show me wrong:  what i'll never be willing to do, however, is to ignore fact in favor of ... who knows.  who cares.

          •  If you want polling data (0+ / 0-)

            I suggest you find some way to pay for it.  The exit polling we have this year is no more reliable than the exit polling we had in '06, '04, etc. - we don't have enough people at enough precincts with enough experience to do the job right.  Even if the polling company were willing to hand out the product of their privately-funded labor for free, it wouldn't be meaningful as an audit tool.

            Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

            by Phoenix Rising on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:28:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  ugh. (0+ / 0-)

              there WAS exit polling.  you don't know if it was done professionally or not.  WHO DID IT?  WHERE IS IT?

              WHY DON'T WE HAVE ACCESS TO IT?

              •  We had access to it through reporters (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                newfie

                Dozens of newspapers and teevee organizations had direct access to it. They all decide whether to call races independently based on their read of the data.  They all felt McCain could be called early.  They all felt the Dem race was too close to call till about 70% of the precincts had reported to the state.  There is no evidence that the exit polls showed a wide margin for Obama.  If that were true, why did no one call it for him.  Are they ALL in on the conspiracy?  Did the Diebold/GOP/bipartisan-local-election-authority conspiracy take in the reporters for all the national news organizations as well?

                I have a few rules to judge politics by.  First, I believe with Abraham Lincoln that corrupt conspiracies DO sometimes effect important things.  Two, I believe that conspiracies depend on secrecy.  Three, I believe that when the chain of secrecy required is unbelievably long, either there is no conspiracy, or the conspiracy is so incredibly vast that it just isn't worth fighting.  I mean, Opus Dei couldn't pull off this kind of massive but silent operation in Pinochet's Chile.  I just don't think it happened in Shaheen's New Hampshire.

                •  they didn't call it because (0+ / 0-)

                  the exit data was in POLAR OPPOSITE of the voting results - that's why no result was given.

                  that was stated, continually, with a visibly shocked media who, as you say, had access to the raw numbers ....

                  your point about "are they all in on it"?  what do you mean?  only results needed to be manipulated - and in a small, DLC-run state, i don't think that's all that difficult.  diebold doesn't rig elections - they make the software which allows elections to be rigged.  i don't know what's so difficult to get about that.

                  but i really feel bad for our country, when there's people like you that trust raw polling data to be handed to you in cherry-picked bits from news organizations who will not disclose the entire facts, and you're - ok with it.  even more shocking, their post-election "exit polls" are CHANGED to reflect the actual results.  that's simply CRAP, and you've got to know that.

                  your judgment under these conditions, that there is no foul play, is simply irrelevant.

                  as someone else said, we could count the votes manually and put this whole election fraud BS to bed once and for all.

                  what a setup.  8 years, our voting systems are more hackable, more insecure than ever... and yet, we are not supposed to question glaring discrepancies as it "hints of conspiracy."  

                  do you think - with the insecurity of our election process, that it's just beyond us to do it?  as if this is such a phenomenal rarity in the history of mankind, and we are immune... what do you have to bolster your belief, except blind faith?  you would do well to pray, get out your lucky rabbit's foot, flip a coin, and don't step on a crack.

            •  Same polling organization, same methods (0+ / 0-)

              Mitofsky does all exit polling in this country (and in Russia, and in Mexico if those give you any confidence in them...).  Their exit polls here are done for the media, and paid for by the media; the data they collect are privately held and distributed to the media for whatever purposes the media desire.

              They do not poll enough people or enough precincts to use them for audit purposes - statistically speaking.  The media pays them to get trends, not to audit the election.

              Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

              by Phoenix Rising on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:09:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  There were exit polls - the media guys (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sacrelicious

          got them at 5:30pm on election day and they showed Obama winning by something like 4%.

          •  NH was a 9-9 tie. Four percent doesn't matter (3+ / 0-)

            Hillary "won" by what, 3 points? She got 9 delegates.
            Obama "lost?" He got 9 delegates.

            So how is a four percent win by Obama going to change anything? Well, other than the histrionic coverage of the "winner" would run the Obama direction. But I'm not going to buy the notion that anyone commits voter fraud for a PR boost.

            The Oily Osmond believes Native Americans are a tribe of Jews, and you're a bigot if you question his religion.

            by overlander on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:05:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I don't get what you mean. (0+ / 0-)

        ...Operation Rota is Closed... New Blog Coming Soon With Pictures!...

        by nowheredesign on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:39:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Try this [defending Diebold virtually is non- (7+ / 0-)

      defensible]
      http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

      Google: Diebold Voting Machines
      or Diebold Voting Machines used at Iowa Straw Poll

      This from the GOP.

    •  seen on the dextrosphere (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      forgore

      Though it needn't guide what we say to one another, I will note for whatever it's worth that my very unscientific spot-sample of right-wing bloggery does support this concern. Mockery of Diebold conspiracy theorists was a prominent thread in the post-NH punditry that I read over yonder in red territory.

      A Republican is a person who says we need to rebuild Iraq but not New Orleans. - Temple Stark

      by Christopher Walker on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:48:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But but but - - an icky GIRL can't beat 3 guys !! (0+ / 0-)

      she had to have cheated - - she's a bitch (and I say that in absolute non sexist gender neutral terms).
      (snark)

      Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

      by Barry in MIA on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:58:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  When I saw it written on Bradblog that dKos was (20+ / 0-)

    a pro-Hillary site I kind of knew that something was rotten in Denmark, as in they don't know WTF they're talking about in this case.

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live. Nobody ever changed the world by sitting on their butt & complaining.

    by LionelEHutz on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:38:24 PM PST

  •  But there is no other conceivable explanation (22+ / 0-)

    for why my candidate lost.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:38:39 PM PST

  •  Thanks, DH. The nuts are out tonight. (20+ / 0-)

    And because I still have it open on my desktop from a search for another diary, here's the link to the NH voting statute:

    NH Secy of State

    open to the page dealing with recounts.

    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

    by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:38:41 PM PST

  •  Thank you. (18+ / 0-)

    This isn't like 18,000 votes disappearing in one county like FL-13.  This is some people not accepting that the Clinton Camp had a great ground operation and a stronger base than people thought (at least since Iowa).

    This was a clean race.  Believe it or not, it happens fairly often.

    But few of us are destined to make a big difference in life; if I can make a little difference, that has to count for something. -G'Kar, 9/22/07 Rest in Peace

    by JR on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:39:18 PM PST

  •  Had Mike Gravel won then you could say the vote (12+ / 0-)

    was hacked.

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live. Nobody ever changed the world by sitting on their butt & complaining.

    by LionelEHutz on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:39:56 PM PST

  •  This site ain't the only place tweakin' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    al Fubar, Rolfyboy6, perro amarillo

    Matthews' new night time Hardball (god, that sounds vaguely obscene) is all about "Whaaaa?"

    Andrew Sullivan proved himself an idiot on it (kidneystones found the link)....Olbermann even waxed on it for some time.

    People are flummoxed, but it's a pretty big leap to election fraud.

    NetrootNews coming soon!

    by ksh01 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:40:05 PM PST

  •  Can someone please tell me (18+ / 0-)

    why this election would be hacked anyway?  Isn't Diebold supposedly in the pocket of the Republicans? Why exactly are they playing in a Democratic primary in this theory?

  •  In 2000 NH was close, but there was no doubt the (8+ / 0-)

    numbers were right. Fortunately NH takes their elections seriously.

    There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi

    by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:40:48 PM PST

  •  A (13+ / 0-)

    FUCKING MEN.

    Enough of the fraudsters and machine shit

    ban the fucker's now.

    We didn't allow Fraud then and we WON'T NOW.

  •  Does this even need to be said??? (13+ / 0-)

    Has the foil hat element become so dominant on this site that they need to be lectured on reality?  

    I guess so.

  •  Oh, you WOULD say that. (13+ / 0-)

    See, the fact that you're trying to convince us that it's not true is PROOF that something really bad happened, and you're part of it.

    /Reynolds Wrap

    "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

    by chumley on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:41:40 PM PST

  •  Yeah? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    al Fubar, Rolfyboy6

    Says who?  And what the heck do you know about New Hampshire, anyway, Mr. Smartypants?

    I refuse to believe that the fate of western democracy can turn on an event called "Super Duper Tuesday"

    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:42:19 PM PST

  •  I think it was Rove, (13+ / 0-)

    in the outhouse, with the plunger - in order to get us fighting amongst ourselves.  Yeah, like THAT would ever happen!

    Am I right??  Did I win??  Do I have a Clue?

    Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

    by sxwarren on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:42:33 PM PST

  •  Some of us are into fairy tales (5+ / 0-)

    even if the Clintons don't like them. My personal favorite is the one about the elves and the shoemaker. So stop raining on our parade.

  •  Diebold Wants Hillary to be President (5+ / 0-)

    BWAH-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
    That -- is -- funny!!
    Thanks, conspiracy theorists!

    Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers? -Mike Huckabee, 12/07

    by easong on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:43:05 PM PST

  •  The simplest explanation ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, jqb, perro amarillo, echatwa

    Of the polling discrepancy is simply how fast things were moving. After Iowa, Obama shot up 10 points overnight in some of the daily trackers. He slipped back overnight too - bad luck for him it was the night polling ended, right before the actual voting.

    The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

    by al Fubar on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:43:15 PM PST

  •  I had made a "Diebold Effect" joke in another (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6

    thread, but I said in my comments I didn't know how the votes were counted or registered.

    I believe it happened the way it happened, nothing the NH voters do surprises me.  

    (Well, I guess it would've shocked me if they went for Edwards.)

  •  Good try! Too many loony toons here, sadly. (9+ / 0-)

    Reason can't affect faith.  A sizable minority has faith in their belief that this election and others are stolen.  No amount of facts or reason can convince them otherwise.  Its like trying to use principles of hydrodynamics to convince an evangelical that the Red Sea did not in fact part.

    Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

    by tmendoza on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:44:28 PM PST

  •  I'd be interested to hear if any... (5+ / 0-)

    election integrity proponents in New Hampshire have taken it upon themselves to write up an election field report summary. Basically detailing any incident reports from voters.

    As you suggest, to draw any nefarious conclusions is absurd. To be keenly interested in keeping a vigilant eye on the results is laudable.

    Time lost is always a disadvantage that is bound in some way to weaken him who loses it. -Clausewitz

    by Malachite on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:46:04 PM PST

  •  But when (15+ / 0-)

    will we get Diebold and these private companies the fuck out of our elections so we don't have this doubt every time?

    •  How are we going to count 1/2 million (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mayim

      votes in a few hours if not for optical scanners?  Or states where there are millions of votes?  It could take weeks to get a result for the election, and it would be prohibitively expensive to hire enough personnel to manually count, say, all the votes in California.  Until/unless some gov't agency gets in the business of inventing an optical scan machine (and you know they'd just contract it out to a private co.), private companies will manufacture the scanners.  We can make sure those results are verifiable (i.e., with a paper trail), but I don't get what you're suggesting here.

      Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

      by milton333 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:23:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Barack has moved on from the NH loss but (11+ / 0-)

    his supporters have not.  They should take a cue from the candidate.  Speculating about the Bradley Effect or Diebold suggests an insecurity that Obama might not be electable, when the lesson Obamaniacs should take from IA and NH is that he has more votes than any candidate in this race after two primaries and should use that as a selling point to both black and white voters in the South and elsewhere in the country.  

    I support Hillary but I'd like to see both candidates do well and showcase our party to the country.  Our party embodies change, progressivism, internationalism, social and economic justice, and fiscal responsibility. Their party is a large, bloated irrelevancy waiting to crumble at the slightest push at the right time.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:46:24 PM PST

  •  we have to have transparent and verifiable (3+ / 0-)

    elections for all...not just some

    lets prove it and compare a hand count to the hackable error prone tabulation machines.

    cause its ONLY the machine counted votes that are out of whack

    http://i138.photobucket.com/...

  •  I knew we couldn't trust the handicapped (5+ / 0-)

    They're obviously the key to this whole conspiracy.  

    ---
    Frameshop needs your love to survive! Click through to support the site...

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:46:35 PM PST

    •  You should have heard the (0+ / 0-)

      SNEER when the poll person said 'Democrat'!

      [He actually was pretty amused, I live in BushBotford, NH. These Repugs really look down upon us hippies here.]

      These poll people are evil. At night, they conjure up Hillary in their evil pots of newts and frogs and cast spells. It's all a plot to continue with the two family dynasty.

      I hear with two, you get egg roll.
      Well, I'm holding out for the Peking Duck.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:19:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I thought it was snark (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, Rolfyboy6, Clem Yeobright

    So at work, when I was too busy, I did not read the diary alluding to a Diebold hack.
    I had no idea it was "serious".

    Cowards die many times before their deaths... Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar, II, 2

    by on the cusp on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:46:58 PM PST

  •  If Diebold DIDN'T Rig This Election... (14+ / 0-)

    ...how come everything I want to have happen doesn't, even when I pray on my pillow each night?

  •  Past elections weren't questionable because... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linnen, milton333

    ...of pre-polling. That often gets things wrong. They were questionable because the exit polls got it wrong, which is a relatively new phenomenon. I would expect results to not match polls in this case, since there were a lot of undecided people who were influenced by last minute events.

    You vote independent... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

    by dianem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:47:14 PM PST

  •  The topic should be examined (8+ / 0-)

    I think everyone should see this...

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    and this:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/...

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:47:34 PM PST

  •  Riddle me this, batman (16+ / 0-)

    How come people who support a candidate because of his purported talent for bringing people together to effect change ... have demonstrated themselves over and over again here at dK to be singularly inept at bringing anybody together to effect any change of any type?

    Is a puzzlement!

    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

    by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:47:55 PM PST

  •  How is every election stolen? (8+ / 0-)

    Now, I'm not saying that none of this is possible. In fact, I still believe that Florida was probably rigged (and if not, Gore still got the popular vote). Ohio in 2004 I'm a little more iffy about, but that's for another time and debate.

    But, seriously people. How come every time that an election doesn't have the results that we want, we immediately cry election fraud. I mean, I haven't looked at the evidence for this case, but I mean come on. The election occurred 24 hours ago, and I woke this morning to people saying that Hillary stole the election. There had to have been 18 hours in between when the final votes were cast and people started coming up with conspiracies.

    Have we truly become this ignorant and childish? She won an election, and not by much. Get over it people. Shit happens, people lose, other people win. If we are seriously going to go ahead like this every time that we lose an election, we don't deserve to win.

    •  Well I'd separate the primaries from the general (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      txgirl

      elections. It is well documented what kinds of activities (legal or otherwise) that have been used to reduce the Democratic vote. The Supreme Court is deciding a case right now that would disenfranchise citizens in Indiana. There are people who think up creative ways to prevent their opponents from voting. People are right to be concerned, but a 10% swing would be a massive action that could not possibly go undetected. Put-up or Shut-up!

      There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS. Mahatma Gandhi

      by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:56:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have researched this issue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DHinMI, milton333

      I have done much research on this.  Last time around in NH there were claims with regard to Nader etc, but the data didn't really support it.  The real claims that seem to carry weight are in FL, particularly in the Sarasota County district, where my Mother votes.  That one is really off base.  The NH results have never been statistically out of line, & I would be shocked if someone would do that in a primary???? Doesn't make sense, and the fact that the vote was fairly consistent across the state (consistent as to Obama winning Dean areas & Clinton winning Kerry areas) doesn't give credence to that.

      If Bill was still in charge, this wouldn't all be happening...

      by letsbepragmatic on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:00:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gore got the popular vote and the EC vote (0+ / 0-)

      even considering any machine fraud that may have occurred. This was proven by numerous MSM news organizations. The result of their investigations has been widely misrepresented (by themselves among others). Gore would have lost if only the four counties he asked to be recounted had been recounted, but if all the counties had been recounted, he would have unambiguously won.

    •  What fools these mortals be. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Son, you're makin' the same mistake with Iraq that I did with your mother. I didn't pull out in time.

      by fou on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:12:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  On to the next round (4+ / 0-)

    The primaries are coming too fast to linger with this much past a day, but to ignore the machine count versus human count differences is just asinine.  It should all be hand counted with absolute transparency.  Anyway, 48 more states to go!

  •  THANK YOU (4+ / 0-)

    although I am partial to the wood elves theory.

    Paper ballots don't lie.

    "Of course your need to consume is an exception due to your incredibly challenging circumstances."

    by Topaz7 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:49:55 PM PST

  •  Thanks - (5+ / 0-)

    That's a pretty definitive summary.

    (Meaning: you may know more about my state than I do.)

  •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6

    I as a Clinton support encourage the tin foil hat Clinton haters to rile on. Make sure everyone knows how you feel. The more you rant about this the more people you will turn on to be Hillary supporters.

    Iowa Caucus voters: Obama 24.5%, Edwards 20.5%, Clinton 19.8%, Huckabee 11.4%

    by Christopher Liberal on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:53:47 PM PST

    •  Nah. It's a separate issue. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cyber Kat, GiveNoQuarter, americangoy

      Personally, I lean toward an Obama/Edwards ticket - but I will vote for any of the three (or any Dem who lurks - hint... Gore) in any combination, or with unknown kickers for VP.

      We are blessed with so much talent and competence.  Really.

      But the voting thing is separate.

      Our votes are not secure.

      Spin it however you like:  our votes are not secure.  They are in the control of corporations who were begun by Senator Hagel (an honorable man, for a Republican), and who are now run by major contributors to the Republican cause.

      Gee.  Forgive me.  But I am uncomfortable with that.

      It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you.

      by Jaime Frontero on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:26:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So you want her to win, not because of her (0+ / 0-)

      qualities, but because the qualities of certain of Obama's supporters? Well, by that criterion, she ought to lose, because your attitude sucks.

  •  Yeah, if you're going to rig an (11+ / 0-)

    election, all you have to do is go back a year and make sure the person you're rigging for is leading in the polls the whole time, so no one suspects . . .

    /snark

    "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

    by delphine on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:55:24 PM PST

  •  THANK YOU, DH! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, MikePhoenix

    Jesus.  I'm against the "comeback" meme, because I was expecting HRC to do better.

    The tinfoil is strong in the blogosphere.

    HRC won.  Let it lie.

  •  Some of that is misleading..... (7+ / 0-)

    Yes, it's less than half the towns, but it's still true the majority of votes are by optical scan.  Are a "small" number of those scan machines really Diebold?

    And yes, fraud should be detectable in a hand count.  So why not have one.  The point ought to be to have confidence in the system.

    In the event of an unusual and unexpected result, I would think that's when you would do hand recounts to be sure.  It ought to be done either way, just to help restore some confidence amongst the large number of voters who are rightly skeptical given some of the security lapses which have  occurred in recent years with voting machines.

    I'd like to at least know there is some auditing of results going on, they don't need to recount every district or precinct, just enough to get a fair and representative sample.

  •  Matthews will go with this if racism doesn't work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    highacidity

    He's trying to cover his butt by saying everyone lied to the pollsters but if that doesn't get traction I'm sure he'll have a Hardball episode about this.  

    I personally find it disgusting that no one wants to let the will of the people be counted, whether it is in Iowa where Obama won, or NH, where Hillary won.

    If Bill was still in charge, this wouldn't all be happening...

    by letsbepragmatic on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:56:06 PM PST

    •  why shouldn't people lie to pollsters? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ivan, highacidity, milton333

      pollsters don't put them under oath, after all.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:14:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also note (0+ / 0-)

        it seems only people with land lines get polled.

        Every Obama supporter I personally know (And I am a bit closer after that speech in NH after...) do not have a land line.  They are nearly all quite young.  

        They have a cell phone.

        Anecdotal and no science involved, but it makes as much sense as any of the CT's that are flying around.

        The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

        by NCrefugee on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:25:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you're saying that... (0+ / 0-)

          ...the polls which pretty uniformly showed Obama winning by ten or so were only valid for folks with land lines?

          But you're also saying that cell-phone-only people are overwhelmingly for Obama?

          Well, I'm not terribly smart - but to me that translates as you should be believing Obama ought to have won by at least 15%.

          No?

          It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you.

          by Jaime Frontero on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:34:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  the exit polls were done live and in person (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckrogers1965

          as voters left their polling stations. These are the polls that have raised questions about racial motivations as they showed Obama winning by 4% or so after votes were cast . . .

      •  well the Republican exit polls were accurate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckrogers1965

        so there should be questions asked about what happened on the Democratic side . .

        •  The dem audit polls were accurate too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          linnen

          that's why most major media called the GOP side early, but didn't call the Dem side, because the exit polls showed a close race.  Given questions of differential turnout, you wouldn't want to call a race based on a 3% margin in an exit poll.

          The polls that were wrong were polls taken in the days beforehand.

    •  Matthews can wear this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat

       title=

      as much as he likes. He hates women, and specifically hates Hillary Clinton as a strong woman who threatens his unstable masculinity.

      Any 1st year psych student can smell the English Leather fetish 100 miles away. He's a little scared boy.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:11:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Remember the stoery of the Boy who Cried Wolf (14+ / 0-)

    If you keep crying "ELECTION FRAUD!!!!" no one will believe you when it really does happen.

    And where would that get us?

  •  Lunacy? (8+ / 0-)

    These people don't seem particularly crazy to me and they've got problems with how the votes were counted in their state.

    http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:57:04 PM PST

  •  Someone on MSNBC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6

    discussed the Diebold issue tonight:

    Apparently, the results in the smaller precincts that use old-fashioned paper ballots matched the percentages statewide.

    Thus, no Diebold conspiracy.

    •  This isn't about (11+ / 0-)

      voting machines.  It's about counting machines.  

      Apparently there's some sort of discrepancy between hand counted paper ballots and machine counted paper ballots.  

      There were no electronic ballots to question.

      It's the counting.  It is totally possible to rig the machines to count wrong.

      NO I'M NOT SAYING THAT HAPPENED.  NO BANNING, PLEASE.

      I'm just explaining what others are saying and that it's not about diebold voting machines.

      HRC was winning forever in NH according to the polls.  Zogby explained his bad prediction on the fact they didn't really have a three day rolling average because they had to include polling from Obama's Iowa bump, so it skewed things.

      Sometimes a cigar . . . etc.

      "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

      by delphine on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:02:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dare I say it ??? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PrgrsvArchitect

        Bingo !!!

        You should have written the Front Page diary.

        Most of the heat and flames here isn't because of the content, it's because of the WAY IT'S PRESENTED.

        "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
        If you want to go far, go together.
        We have to go far, quickly."

        by shpilk on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's a trap!!! (7+ / 0-)

    Don't listen to DH!!

    He's lying!!  It's a trap!!

    "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

    by chumley on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:57:55 PM PST

  •  We have insecure elections (8+ / 0-)

    I'll save my "If I did it" diary for later.

    I'm making no claims about this particular elections other than "it could have happened."

    Anyone who makes this about the candidates is missing the point.  It could have happened.  It's technically possible for to have happened.  And it shouldn't be.

    I don't know how to express it any more plainly than that.

    For a democratic society to function people must have faith in the electoral process.  The validity of elections must be beyond reproach.  Right now this is not the case.

    If we keep using these bullshit machines, there is a very good chance that the supreme court will again determine the next president.

    •  Um, No, Really, It's NOT Possible (6+ / 0-)

      Not without hundreds of people involved, because the machines are under the control of about 100 separate towns, they are not linked together, you would still have the paper trail, and it would have to be done in a way that there weren't obvious discrepancies between the places with the optical scan tabulation and the places where they count by hand.

      So, no, not really, not in New Hampshire not unless it was a vast, vast conspiracy.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:06:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right (4+ / 0-)

        But to be fair, the majority of people I've read today (not counting Paulbots) who have been discussing Diebold have been more concerned with accounting for programming errors or discrepancies, not actually claiming Clinton (or anyone else) was running into hundreds of precincts with magic decoder rings.  :)

        Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down.

        by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:15:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Machines Exist in a Context (5+ / 0-)

          The machines often suck, but the fraudsters usually have no clue about any of the context, like who would have access to which machines, whether they're linked electronically, how many people would have to be involved in deliberately screwing around with them, etc.

          Because the machines suck, it would often be very easy to rig local elections.  Because of voting patterns across jurisdictions, it would be easy to find serious flaws in electronic tabulation if it weren't widespread.  If to be widespread, it would usually require the involvement of many, many people.  And NH, because of the local control and the lack of statewide or even countywide integration, would be a very very difficult place to attempt to rig an election.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:29:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  From a security perspective, it needn't involve (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cyber Kat, forgore, buckrogers1965

            many to hack an election. All you need is one or two folks to hack a reasonable number of the memory cards before they're distributed to the precincts.

            The tabulators needn't be networked. You could write a single script that you copied to multiple mem cards.

            This stuff has all been posted to Slashdot before. See page 6 in this report.

            The system is still ridiculously exploitable.

            Again, I'm not asserting that mischief happened. But, as someone who lives in a world of hackers and swes that love this stuff, I think it's only fair to contradict some of your assumptions.

            We are nowhere near reasonable election security at the moment.

            But, of course, systematic random sampling of machine counts for verification purposes, by a non-partisan agency, would clear up all of this overnight.

            It's a best practice that is long overdue. Then we wouldn't have to revisit this frustrating process everytime an unconventional election scenario comes up.

            'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

            by Maxwell on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:03:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They're Not "Distributed to Precincts" (0+ / 0-)

              Most places in NH have exactly one voting location.  Even bigger jurisdictions only have a handful; Nashua has about 90,000 people, but iirc only 8 wards.  Towns with 30,000 or 40,000 people often have only one voting location, as with Hanover.  There just aren't that many machines floating around NH.  There are about 80 towns that use the machines, but there are only about 120 or so voting locations at those 80 towns.  There just aren't that many machines, they're not under the control of a small number of people (because everything is controlled at the town level), and again, hacking machines where town next door with similar voting demographics count their votes by hand would be easily exposed.  

              People get fixated autistic-like on the machines, which are bad, but can't understand that the machines exist in a context that's different from a computer lab.  In some contexts, it might be easy to rig a local election with the machines.  It would be extremely difficult to rig a statewide election through the machines, especially in a state like NH where things aren't centrally controlled and many votes are counted by hand.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:50:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Again, I must disagree. (7+ / 0-)

        So, no, not really, not in New Hampshire not unless it was a vast, vast conspiracy.

        Your vast, vast conspiracy - today in 2008 - would require fewer that 1% of those participants in the 1960 Chicago election fraud.

        It is possible.  I built the largest, fastest, unrouted network in Minnesota, once upon a time, and I've got a rough idea.

        But you're right that the ballots are all on paper.  A recount would calm the less temperate of our citizens.  Of course, we've done that before - I'd like to see a recount (if recount there will be) that didn't involve lost ballots, and ballots that turned up six months later in a dumpster, and etc.

        Once again - I'm not much for conspiracies, but I want to be sure.

        And I'm not.

        It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you.

        by Jaime Frontero on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:45:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think why you're having trouble convincing (9+ / 0-)

        ...certain folks here and there is because you're not addressing the specific data they're seeing, ie, this analysis:

        http://ronrox.com/...

        Now, mind you, I don't buy that there was any sort of conspiracy; I think the discrepancies between hand counts and machine counts are likely due to the regional distributions of the optical scan machines in precincts that were more favorable to Clinton.

        But I think you'd have better traction with some folks if you dropped the appeals to authority and "nutso" smears, and just beat them at their own game.

        Frankly, I understand after Florida 2000, the weird exit polls of 2004, and some of the vote suppression antics of both cycles, why people tend to think conspiratorially.

        When expectations are off, and suspicions are buoyed by a +5.4 Clinton advantagein machine count districts, I see why some are left wondering.

        But I believe in Ockham's principle, and shy away from conspiracies. I also however think that you have to defeat them with data.

        So perhaps you can specifically address in an "update" what would account for the swings from a regional or demographic perspective...because I think you and the conspiracists are talking past each other merely because you're using different data sources.

        'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

        by Maxwell on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:58:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

          Though I must point out that this is the first time I've seen a sub-1000 Kossack link to a Ron Paul site.  :)

          Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down.

          by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:02:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's In the Links (0+ / 0-)

          If people don't bother following links, it's hard to take seriously their understanding and use of data.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:20:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, to be fair, all you linked to... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cyber Kat, dotdot

            ...were the towns that use optical scanners and a link to MSNBC where the town vote breakouts are. Your own analysis of this disconnected data, such that it is, is pretty sketchy (you called it a "rough draft"). So I think it may be bit arrogant to dismiss anyone who doubts your analysis as being data-dumb.

            Now, it's not as much work as you might think to write a few Python scripts and pull disparate data sources into mysql db and crunch the numbers. The Paulie who did it in the link above managed to do it in an hour or two as far as I can tell.

            So again, I think you guys are talking past each other, because the Paulite's analysis is more data-rich from a quantitative perspective than your own.

            If you addressed why the data discrepancy is so pronounced across both small and medium towns (as the analysis indicates), that would probably clear things up. You mention for instance that fewer than half of New Hampshire towns use optical scanners, but the number of towns doesn't matter; population isn't evenly distributed across those towns. So, to be fair, your own data assumptions could be better formulated, should you want to dismiss the more statistically minded among the community.

            I think the weak spot in the Paulite analysis that you might examine is why large towns that voted heavily Clinton were also strongly correlated with the AccuVote systems. If this is easily explainable, the conspiracy theories fall happily flat.

            'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

            by Maxwell on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:42:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Now that's the (0+ / 0-)

          first sane post i've seen here yet. Thank you. Some would rather hurl insults and call names rather than support their arguments with real substance.

          "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

          by dotdot on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I so TOTALLY Agree!!! (5+ / 0-)

      If we keep using these bullshit machines, there is a very good chance that the supreme court will again determine the next president.

      Those sharpie markers will be the death of me!  Those fumes always make me light headed enough... make me accidentally vote Republican.

  •  You've heard it a dozen times.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nelsons, Same As It Ever Was

    ..but thanks! It's nice to have some rationality to defuse the conspiracy whack-jobs!

    I must admit I kept looking for the Recommend button for a few seconds until I realized there wasn't one. D'oh!

  •  Best DH front page post ever! Thanks, DH! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rolfyboy6, WhamIAm
  •  LOL.. Someone Made That Accusation? (5+ / 0-)

    Glad I was swamped all day.

    :)

    ::::

    ...Operation Rota is Closed... New Blog Coming Soon With Pictures!...

    by nowheredesign on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:59:56 PM PST

  •  bwahahaha (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tabbycat in tenn, AUBoy2007

    another one just got posted...

    Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

    by campskunk on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:00:00 PM PST

  •  I'm for Obama and Clinton won..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, mayim

    New Hampshire & Iowa can take pride in the way the election was handled.

    "The Conservatives definition of torture: Anything that provides death or false information from its captive." Me 2007

    by army193 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:00:12 PM PST

  •  I agree, however (6+ / 0-)

    The rush to blame voting systems is a symptom of rampant cynicism in this country. Nobody can trust the government anymore. Obama has the potential to change that. Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill "First Cynic" Clinton don't.

    If trust erodes in a democracy, it's only a matter of time before the democracy itself bites the dust. Which is why we must have better voting systems, and honest leaders.

  •  Some inspirational reading on NH for you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, MissLaura, vcmvo2

    This is Elwood Dowd's commentary on his experience yesterday as an election judge in his town in NH, along with some pithy commentary on this particular CT topic ...

    [Hope you don't mind, ED!]

    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

    by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:01:44 PM PST

  •  There was a recount after the 2004 Primary? (5+ / 0-)

    I don't remember that.  Nobody ever seeks a Primary recount.  There's only a week or so before the next Primary in some other state.  I'm not convinced by your argument.  That said, I am not convinced that the HUGE discrepancy between the actual results and the polls was a rig job.  However, the pre-polls and exit polls were dead on in Iowa, and in the Repub NH primary.  Makes me go... hmmmm.  Something was screwy.  I also don't buy much of the crap explanations about the exit polls that I have been hearing.  I heard one idiot woman on MSNBC today say that maybe people are offended by being asked exit polling and claim they voted for a candidate other than who they actually voted for.  What nonsense.  Something is not adding up in all of this.

  •  New Hampshire has no touchscreen voting. None. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rimjob, Clem Yeobright

    There is no sex in the champaign room. None.

  •  I totally disagree (12+ / 0-)

    Actually I think totally disregarding a possibility is as irresponsible as totally accepting a theory. Therefore I find this diary as objectionable as the so called conspiracy diary. I think in every election, we should look at the methods used and question accuracy. In Minnesota, by law we do spot checks of hand counts against machine counts. That is not because we are conspiracy theorists, it is because we are super careful. So I find your diary as irresponsible as the media never covering topic.

    It seems just like the Overton window, you are arguing that this is "unthinkable", not wrong, just unthinkable. Argue its wrong, that is a good diary.

    Now I expect you all to troll rate me - so be it. At least the author will see this note.

  •  Seriously, people should just shut up. (14+ / 0-)

    First of all, you're making all of us Obama supporters look like crap. It's bad enough having half of DailyKos absolutely convinced that Obama is the right-wing sellout Broderist candidate, but for fellow supporters to call into question the integrity of an election just because the candidate you didn't want to win won by a meager two percent renders Obama's entire candidacy absolutely absurd.

    Obama was classy - he congratulated Senator Clinton because New Hampshire was her night. Be freaking classy.

    Secondly, this makes a real effort to stand for election reform impossible. Calling the integrity of the electoral process into question is an extremely serious issue, one that has cost our party twice in the last eight years. A true Democrat uses this ability to uphold the integrity of the election process, not to mindlessly shill for a candidate.

    For everyone else - It is idiotic and unfair of you to blame Obama supporters as a whole for the idiocy of a few pinhead conspiracy theorists.

    I hate that I have to apologize for supporting Obama.

    by bhagamu on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:06:35 PM PST

  •  FInally, no more of THIS junk... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beagledad, Same As It Ever Was

    ...:

     title=

    No more "black helicopter"-type BS from the anti-Clinton crowd, and DK once again gets to look like the legitimate site it is and should be

  •  YES WE CAN (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ivan

    barack was robbed by that %^&$# !@#$%!  kept down again!  but we don't have to take that lyin' down!  we need to rise up!  to end slavery!  to end oppression!  to end all the diseases known to mankind!  to end vote fraud!  to send a man to mars!  and jupiter! and saturn!  and uranus!  and neptune!  and pluto!  hell, let's put a m*f* on the sun!  and if we elect barack for president, he'll get aaaaaalllllll that done m*f*s!  if we elect barack, it's like ending slavery!  (yes!)  it's like getting women the right to vote!  it's like the fall of the berlin wall!  if we elect barack. (yeah!)  there will be no more war!  it's like building a bridge to the moon!  best believe that!  but the first step!  (yes!) that we need to take!  (yes, sir!), on this looooooooooooooooooooooonnng-ass road to change!  is to find out how that m*f* $%^&* stole our m*f* votes! they got tricks!  them clintons!  the devil comes in all shapes.  in aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll sizes!  it's easy, to think, the just 'cause she cried, that she's a human. (yes!)  but she didn't cry for katrina! (no sir!)  she didn't cry for ... 50!  (no. she. did. not!)  and she didn't cry (no!) when oprah (no!) got big (uh-uh!) ... again!  no sir!

    so my brothers and sisters of all colors (yes!) all shapes!  all sizes!  we need to make sure that on election day we vote to end the divisions of the past!  and rid this nation of the pain of divisive politics!

    Son, you're makin' the same mistake with Iraq that I did with your mother. I didn't pull out in time.

    by fou on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:07:46 PM PST

  •  Getting Caught Is No Incentive (8+ / 0-)

    However, the incentive for hacking them is not very great, because unlike with the paperless voting, again, there's the paper trail.  So if there were ever a recount [...] the malfeasance would be easily discovered.

    I don't know whether or not there was vote fraud in NH. But relying on "getting caught" as the deterrence to guarantee the votes aren't faked, is not reassuring. Vote fraudsters were caught in Ohio 2004, where evidence included thousands of people who stood in freezing rain for hours because their Democratic polling places didn't have enough machines, but the Republican ones mysteriously did. And plenty of other dirty tricks were even documented in reports like John Conyers', who's now chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Just like fraudulent purge lists and lots of other evidence was documented in Florida 2000.

    But that didn't stop the fraud.

    So theoretical ideas about getting caught deterring vote fraud aren't reassuring.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:10:37 PM PST

    •  Who would have thought (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DocGonzo, forgore

      that having the same guy running both the vote counting for Ohio and the bush re-election campaign in Ohio would have been partisan or anything.  

      Funny, just 4 years earlier the woman running the Florida election campaign was also in charge of running the vote counting.

      Strange how when there is a conflict of interest like that how it turns into a huge fiasco when it comes time to count the vote.  

      Maybe we should just not allow people with a conflict of interest to run the voting?

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      One key difference is that the primary is ongoing:  if anyone attempts electoral fraud in NH and is caught, they will lose the rest of the primary.
       
      In contrast, a presidential election is over in one night.  There is no chance for shady doings in one state to incur a backlash that loses a candidate the rest of the country.

      Of course, another key difference is that fraud in the form of logistical hurdles and purge lists comprise stunts that, if noticed, can be plausibly denied by officials as incompetence or mismanagement.  Something so direct as tampering with vote totals, when paper ballots exist for a hand recount, is too blatant for that kind of "out".  

      •  Will They? (0+ / 0-)

        Now we've got evidence. That alone, even if it's inconclusive, should have a serious effect on future voters (who work on partial info overall, and aren't waiting for a court decision - which they wouldn't necessarily believe, anyway).

        Also, Bush's frauds and scams in 2000 left him with a bigger margin in 2004. Even if he stole 2004, too, it shouldn't even be close. Because people get politics through the media, which immediately dismisses and suppresses any reaction that would do something about these routine frauds. Just like we're seeing in this "lunacy" story.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:12:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  A-effing-men (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jqb, highacidity, milton333

    The sour grapes conspiracy nuts coming out over this was amusing at first, now it's just exasperating.

    I'm not happy Clinton won.  But I'm not going to bend the fabric of reality to try and give it an explanation other than the voters of NH speaking.

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:11:20 PM PST

  •  Diebold didn't hack it. Hackers may have (7+ / 2-)

    hacked the election, using the easily hackable Diebold (now called Premier) machine. This article raises the possibility of what may have happened in NH.

    PRIMARY CONCERNS
    By Robert C. Koehler
    Tribune Media Services
    As the breathless sports coverage of the presidential primaries bursts around me this morning, I’m doing my best to resist surrendering to the contrived drama about “comeback kids” and the flying shrapnel of numbers and hold onto my troubled skepticism about the electoral process, or at least most of it.

    First of all, before we get too enthusiastic about feminist solidarity or wax knowingly about New Hampshire Democrats’ traditional soft-heartedness toward the Clinton family, let’s ponder yet again the possibility of tainted results, which is such an unfun prospect most of the media can’t bear to remember that all the problems we’ve had with electronic voting machines — and Diebold machines in particular, which dominate New Hampshire polling places — remain unsolved.

    Did the Hillary campaign really defy the pollsters? She had been trailing Barack Obama by 13 percentage points, 42 to 29, in a recent Zogby poll, as election watchdog Brad Friedman pointed out. And the weekend’s “rapturous packed rallies for Mr. Obama,” as the New York Times put it, “suggested Mrs. Clinton was in dire shape.”

    So when she emerged from the Tuesday primary with an 8,000-vote and 3-percentage-point victory over Obama, perhaps — considering the notorious unreliability, not to mention hackability, of Diebold machines — the media might have hoisted a few red flags in the coverage, rather than immediately chalk the results up to Clinton’s tears and voter unpredictability. (Oh, if only more reporters considered red flags patriotic.)

    The fact is, whatever actually happened in New Hampshire voting booths on Tuesday, our elections are horrifically insecure. For instance, Bev Harris, of the highly respected voting watchdog organization Black Box Voting, recently wrote that the Diebold 1.94w optical scan machines used in some 55 percent of New Hampshire precincts (representing more than 80 percent of the state’s voters) are “the exact same make, model and version hacked in the Black Box Voting project in Leon County (Florida)” a few years ago. They haven’t been upgraded; the security problems haven’t been fixed.

    National, or at least media, denial about this situation doesn’t say much for the strength of our democracy.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:14:19 PM PST

  •  If this story doesn't die... (7+ / 0-)

    ...then I think Hillary should request the recount.  Pay the $1,000.  When everything comes back as it should, she'd benefit from additional positive press ("Hillary confirmed big winner in New Hampshire; conspiracy theorists shut up").  :)

    Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down.

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:17:58 PM PST

  •  I welcomed the arrival of Progressive radio (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caj, Ericwmr, Same As It Ever Was

    ...in the Phoenix area. I thought that it would be a nice alternative to the wacky right juggernaut that is AM radio. I admit that I hadn't tuned into though, until recently. Boy, was I in for a surprise.

    I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in the whole experience. It seems to be a refuge only for the Kucinich faithful (at best, nothing against Dennis), or conspiracy theorists of the worst sort (the Clintons stole New Hampshire! Diebolded again!).

    Turning my dial back to NPR... thank you very much.

  •  Bill Clinton seminar of 2004 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alba

    I got my own personal "bingo" moment with the Hillary "cry" episode.

    Does anyone remember Bill Clinton's C-SPAN broadcast seminar for college students in Arkansas a little more than four years ago?
    His prescription for winning a presidential race contained three items:

    A) show people that you have the qualities that people like in your opponent.
    B) show people something about your opponent that if people knew it, they wouldn't like them so much.
    C) show people something that your opponent can't possibly offer that you can.

    First Hillary had to be for change, second they trotted out the (false) Iraq war and abortion claims and third Hillary was a woman..something Obama can't be.

    Exactly Bill Clinton's prescription for winning, by the book.

    •  If you are looking for bingo (0+ / 0-)

      Eartha Kitt and Clodah Rodgers are reputed to play a mean game of bingo.

      Would you like your room bugged, or unbugged?

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:53:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  question: WHERE'S THE NH EXIT POLL DATA? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Wow! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jqb, PerfectStormer

    OK Kos, I think we found a new conspiracy theory to add to Building 7 and the Tsunami Weapon...

  •  My take on why Hillary may have won in NH (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ericwmr, mayim

    I have been listening to all kinds of theories on what happened in NH so I might as well put my 2 cents in. After Obama won in Iowa and all the talk about the unstopable Obama wave began the thought occurred to me that the voters of New Hampshire might just throw a monkey wrench into the Obama wave just to show the rest of the country how independent they are and how they could care less about what the media thinks. So when Hillary did win I actually wasn't that surprised. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one.  The voters of NH take theirselves very seriously and it all may just be about their collective ego.

    When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.---Sinclair Lewis

    by rmonroe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:28:04 PM PST

    •  Not to discount all other factors, but yea.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rmonroe, mayim

      The "contrarian" NH sterotype isn't pushed for absolutely no reason.  Take this along with Ron Paul, McCain, the expectation of an Obama blowout, and some blowback/effectiveness of the "tears" issue.

      Whether or not it holds water, one theory I like to at least laugh about is that there was enough "We hate Mitt Romney" sentiment in play that indies who felt Obama was more than safe turned their attention toward lashing out at Gov. Smarmy.

      •  Romney / Nominee (0+ / 0-)

        What's funny is that the NH media made a special effort to run down Mitt Romney, but there was no contrarian boomerang effect there.  "Ayuh!  No newspaper's gonna tell me Mitt Romney's a plastic phony!  I'm gonna march ovah theyah and give them a piece of my... um... nah, they're right."

    •  Possibly true but a good reason for (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ericwmr, rmonroe

      removing NH's stranglehold on the number 1 spot in the primary process. .

  •  I was unaware that such diaries were being pub.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ca democrat

    lished until I saw this on the front page.  I mean, it's worth dismissing if there are enough idiots claiming this happened but I've been on the site 6 or 8 times today and I didn't notice anyone talking about Diebold.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:31:04 PM PST

  •  An defiantly ignorant post on the main page (6+ / 0-)

    The writer here is wearing blinders.  He/she insists upon assuming the authority to speak down to activists who have a lot more information-- and in writing here projects a narrowmindedness on others.  The Diebold tabulation equipment is faulty.  It has failed every test, every analysis.
    The Democrats have gone through two elections and more, defiantly refusing to contest the privatization of our voting systems to corporate hacks whose products are protected by "proprietory" secrets, Every examination of this equipment, the scanners as well as the touch screens, shows not only vulnerability to hacking, but fraudulantly inadequate products that fail time and again in communities and towns all over the country.
    There are many factions, certainly corporate interests, that would cheat to support a Clinton presidency.  
    There are Republican dirty trick operators who favored a Clinton candidacy from the beginning for their own purposes -- whatever they are.
    The paper trails are hopelessly dysfunctional, and fail repeatedly.
    They are not to be trusted.
    The media is busy running analyses everywhere about why six or seven or ten polling outfits could be wrong.  What's the sense of doing that and accepting the infallibility of the tabulation computers of Diebold?
    If you are examining "wrong" -- look at the tabulation system.
    Make them open it up-- in every way, make it accessible to examination.
    You can call us every name in the book, and offer abusive language saying "stupid" and "shut up", but you are sounding like a Republican with his fingers in his ears.
    We have been fighting this battle for two years, and we will keep fighting it.
    You have come along to agree with a lot of our issues, and still you call us names.
    There is absolutely no sense in anaylyzing something if it is based on false data.
    You come up with ridiculous theories based on nothing more than conjecture.
    We have plenty of evidence of meltdowns in scanning and tabulation from all of the voting manufacturers.
    I have printed out hundreds of pages of failures from every state in the union.
    You are feisty and commanding in tone, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

  •  Not that it'll matter to anyone here... (6+ / 0-)

    ... but for clarity's sake, a couple of points:

    No one has said that the NH primary was conducted on touch screen machines. (at least no one that I've seen) The op-scan machines that NH did use, however, are the same model as the ones that were hacked in Hacking Democracy.

    The article on BradBlog doesn't allege fraud, and doesn't accuse anyone of hacking.  The commenters are all over nutzville, but I don't see where the article itself makes that allegation. If you could point out where it says that, I would appreciate it.  

    In a late update, it appears that the reference about this being a pro-Hillary site has been retracted with an apology. Apparently he doesn't spend any time here. After seeing the way people react here, I see why.

    Extraordinary allegations of fraud without extraordinary evidence are not to be tolerated, I agree. It would seem, based on your diary, that you do not dispute that these systems have been proven to be insecure, shoddy and hackable. Would I be correct in inferring that questions regarding the accuracy of these machines -- both touch screen and op-scan -- in real-time, real-life elections are also intolerable, offensive and unwelcome?

    Obviously I like the BradBlog, and find the coverage there informative and credible, and more in-depth than I've seen anywhere else.  I have tried to share the complicated issues involved with these electronic voting systems, as I understand them, while assuming that folks here were capable of investigating and reaching their own conclusions.  

    Thanks for being honest about your contempt for people like me.

    •  OK, You Read the Headline (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85

      Did you even bother to read the post?  I mean, clearly if you did, you didn't follow it very well, because you're "clarifying" things I already made clear in the post.  And nowhere in the post did I mention Bradblog.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:43:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  to clarify my clarification (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        capitalsfn, forgore

        (accidentally posted this under the wrong parent)

        Sorry, I should have made clear that my post was mostly for the people who will read the comments today and in the future.

        I should have made clear that I was referring to your numerous comments upthread and elsewhere that indicate clearly your contempt for Bradblog. My impression was that the conspiracy theory blowback was lumped together with the Bradblog article, which did not make such allegations -- guilt by association, as it were.  If that is an inaccurate characterization, please accept my apologies.

        While I don't think anything untoward happened and am personally delighted in the primary results, the link to Hacking Democracy was for the commenters who are under the impression that this was about touch-screens.

        I should have made clear that a paper trail isn't a good indicator of malfunction or fraud with an op-scan system if it isn't actually counted.  At least, that's my understanding.  The fact that the campaigns haven't asked for a doublecheck of the machine count is not in itself proof that the machine count was accurate. Anecdotal evidence suggests that negative media attention is a very strong deterrent, regardless of private concerns.

        The heated responses here give the strong impression that questions regarding the accuracy of the voting machines in the context of real-time, real-life elections are also intolerable, offensive and unwelcome... and that one would be wise not to ask these questions without solid proof to justify the asking in the first place.  

    •  I recounted the WA Gov vote which used optical (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      N in Seattle, buckrogers1965

      scanners... between gregoire-d and what's-his-pathetic-face whoever.  you know, the election that the got federal judge McKay fired for not falsely/politically going after gregoire after her recount win.

      i can tell you that the disparity was greatest in traditionally republican areas, which used a variety of electronic voting and tabulating devices; but in king county, it is all optical scan.

      •  accuracy, my friend, that's the whole question (0+ / 0-)

        so I think you mean US Attorney McCay.

      •  to clarify my clarification... (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry, I should have made clear that my post was mostly for the people who will read the comments today and in the future.

        I should have made clear that I was referring to your numerous comments upthread and elsewhere that indicate clearly your contempt for Bradblog. My impression was that the conspiracy theory blowback was lumped together with the Bradblog article, which did not make such allegations -- guilt by association, as it were.  If that is an inaccurate characterization, please accept my apologies.

        While I don't think anything untoward happened and am personally delighted in the primary results, the link to Hacking Democracy was for the commenters who are under the impression that this was about touch-screens.

        I should have made clear that a paper trail isn't a good indicator of malfunction or fraud with an op-scan system if it isn't actually counted.  At least, that's my understanding.  The fact that the campaigns haven't asked for a doublecheck of the machine count is not in itself proof that the machine count was accurate. Anecdotal evidence suggests that negative media attention is a very strong deterrent, regardless of private concerns.

        The heated responses here give the strong impression that questions regarding the accuracy of the voting machines in the context of real-time, real-life elections are also intolerable, offensive and unwelcome... and that one would be wise not to ask these questions without solid proof to justify the asking in the first place.  
         

  •  If paper ballots exist (4+ / 0-)

    as this diary asserts, then count them.

    THAT will kill this story dead better than anything.

    For the record I do not foresee any material discrepancy but what is the harm of counting?

    = = =

    Forget New Hampshire, as a general principle I desire paper ballots everywhere and a follow up hand count to verify the scanners. In every election.

    No accusation against Hillary, merely a safeguard against future Roves.

    TeamHillary created the perfect storm in NH and won narrowly. Okay, my compliments. Now tee it up again.

    by Bill White on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:39:34 PM PST

    •  As this Diary Clearly States, They WERE... (4+ / 0-)

      ...counted!

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:43:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  By scanner only? (5+ / 0-)

        That is my question.

        I have NO reason to believe there was error here. But hand counting to verify a machine count merely seems prudent.

        For ALL elections.

        TeamHillary created the perfect storm in NH and won narrowly. Okay, my compliments. Now tee it up again.

        by Bill White on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:45:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Welllll (4+ / 0-)

          Two points:

          1.  If you do hand counting for all elections, then what's the point of machine counting to begin with?
          1.  Don't forget -- all things being equal, hand counting is much more likely to have error than machine counting (unless there's bad programming, error, or fraud)

          Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down.

          by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:48:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hand counting can lead to errors (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Templar, buckrogers1965

            but on a lower level of magnitude than a hack in the software.

            Also, I used to be a bank teller. I counted large piles of $100 bills by hand AND ran them through a machine counter. If the counts agreed, I put a paper wrapper on the stack and initialed it.

            If they disagreed, I did it again.

            TeamHillary created the perfect storm in NH and won narrowly. Okay, my compliments. Now tee it up again.

            by Bill White on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:51:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  On the flip side (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              milton333, Clem Yeobright

              I've used an ATM machine 3-4 times a week for the last decade, so at LEAST 2,000 times.  I have never once received the wrong amount of bills asked for, or a deposit go in the wrong place, or anything ever happen that wasn't expected.  Ever.

              Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down.

              by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:54:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What is the harm of hand counting? (3+ / 0-)

                Again, I have NO fear of funny business in this election.

                However if hand counting is deemed a waste of time then future Rove-ians are given opportunity and encouragement.

                TeamHillary created the perfect storm in NH and won narrowly. Okay, my compliments. Now tee it up again.

                by Bill White on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's really between the candidates and NH (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  milton333

                  The election was for delegates to the Democratic National Convention from New Hampshire.

                  The candidates are content.

                  The people of New Hampshire are content.

                  It's really not your business.

                  You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                  by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:08:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually, I would like a federal law passed (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Templar, buckrogers1965

                    to demand this in all elections. Paper ballots in every election and BOTH a machine count and a hand count to double check each other.

                    Do I have a First Amendment right to argue for such a law, or not?

                    In this election, my prediction is they match.

                    That said, this has gone viral on the freeper blogs and therefore a full hand re-count is now in Hillary's best interest in order to squash the rumors.

                    Especially since I believe the two counts will agree with each other.

                    TeamHillary created the perfect storm in NH and won narrowly. Okay, my compliments. Now tee it up again.

                    by Bill White on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:14:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How about 12 officials in the pressbox at all NFL (0+ / 0-)

                      games to review every play, just in case the guys on the field missed something ... ?

                      At some point, there is good enough!

                      You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                      by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:43:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How about one official watching the game on TV? (0+ / 0-)

                        A once-scanned machine count is good enough for a presidential election?

                        If you were my employee, I'd fire you.

                        Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

                        by gravitylove on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:43:53 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  are they? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    forgore, buckrogers1965

                    or are they just aware of the fact that challenges at this point would be political suicide?

                    As long as there's the potential for a portion of the electorate to see vote challenges as a negative, a paper trial is of limited utility.  Challenges must either be 1) unnecessary or 2) automatic.  The later seems much more practical.  Require that a random sample be recounted by hand.

              •  But you hand counted the money it gave you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cartwrightdale

                Every time too, right?  And you are going to keep on doing that.

                I too have never had a problem with the machines, yet there I am.  Hand counting the amount it gives me every time.

                The difference between a voting machine and a cash machine is that there is an interested party on each side of every transaction double checking to make sure it is correct down to the penny.  

                I have had to make banks correct mistakes, and bounced a check or two in my life.  I called them on their mistakes, they called me on mine.  

                With voting there is no way for me to check to make sure that my one vote was counted the right way.

                •  Absolutely excellent point (0+ / 0-)

                  I hadn't thought of that.  But you're right -- unless I've been in a staggering hurry, I've always counted the money that's come out of the ATM.  The ATM's always been right, but I don't take it for granted.  Trust, but verify.  

                  It would be pricey, but I think some on this thread have convinced me that all elections should be hand AND machine tallied, and if there's more than a minor discrepancy, count by hand again.

                  Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down.

                  by cartwrightdale on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:43:45 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Well I'm assuming he means "by hand" (3+ / 0-)

        Not by machine.  :)

        Which is, I think, not an unreasonable point.  If they do a hand recount, and as expected the numbers match, then that will shut everyone up.

        Turtles, turtles, turtles all the way down.

        by cartwrightdale on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:46:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well then, please say so (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eleming, buckrogers1965

          And this is why a routine hand count to double check the machine count is merely prudent. If the numbers agree, NO ONE except the nutty people can disagree.

          If the hand count confirms the machine count (Me? I would bet that it does) then we can end this story without arguing about motive and opportunity and circumstantial crap.

          TeamHillary created the perfect storm in NH and won narrowly. Okay, my compliments. Now tee it up again.

          by Bill White on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:01:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think this is a perfectly reasonable idea. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ashaman, buckrogers1965

            And many election security advocates endorse it.

            Random handcounts across a statistically significant sampling of the machine tabulated results is a completely rational best practice in an election process.

            People are being too touchy here. Your idea is a perfectly sensible one.

            'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

            by Maxwell on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:51:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The only problem with "random" hand counting (0+ / 0-)

              Is that a lot of times the election officials select a known good set for them to then officially randomly select and count.  It may only be laziness because they don't want to trigger a full recount.  But there it is.  

              That is what those election officials in Ohio were just sentenced to 18 months for.  Their random selection wasn't random.

        •  No, he means by machine (0+ / 0-)

          As I have been able to piece things together across a range of incomplete descriptions provided by various diarists, everyone in NH marked a paper ballot.  The votes on some of these ballots were counted by hand; the votes on others were counted by an optical scanning machine. The results for those counted by hand were that Obama won among those voters; the results for those counted by machine were that Clinton won among those voters.

          The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

          by Free Spirit on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:15:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  shorter, and more concisely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale

    "The pump caught in my trouser leg, and my sandwiches were badly crushed."

    But don't worry, "The ginger biscuit, the crisps and the sausage roll were unharmed."

    --------

    Anyone for bingo?

    "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
    If you want to go far, go together.
    We have to go far, quickly."

    by shpilk on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:45:22 PM PST

  •  If this was a D v R race you wouldnt be lecturing (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZappoDave, alba, forgore, buckrogers1965

    Let me be clear - I don;t think Dieblold got involved here but this tone pisses me off.

    Why?

    Cause if this was a sudden and completelty unexpected turnaround with a miraculous comeback by say Huckabee over Clinton/Obama/Edwards in te fall and we would be SQUEELING!

    And you all know it.

  •  Sorry, I'm with Mike Stark on this (7+ / 5-)

    It never hurts to question, or to ask questions.  In this day and age we should look at everything we see and read with a BIG grain of salt.

    I just watched The Daily Show where I finally actually saw Hillary's "tears".  There were no tears.  There was no breakdown.  There was no real emotion.  There was a politician trying really hard to sound sincere and emotional.   That's it.  Then we spent two days hearing about how THAT may have swayed the election.  What a crock of shit.  

    Yeah, insulting people who question what is going on -- that's real classy.

    Mike Stark is way smarter than most folks, and he's not just hiding behind his keyboard like a lot of people here.  

    I'm gonna let some blowhard-asshole like DHinMI tell me what's true and what is not?   I don't think so.   He's a rude condescending prick, and he thinks he can keep people in line with insults and ridicule.  That is NOT the Democratic way.  It's insulting, it's childish, and it's ugly.

  •  My point is... (4+ / 0-)

    such a vast swing from polls to actual vote total would make every person on this site ask the question if it was a D vs R.

    I am not saying that fraud happened just that it is okay to ask the question even in the primary.

  •  My two cents (9+ / 0-)

    Every ballot cast in New Hampshire except those few cast by the handicapped is written on a piece of paper.
    ...if there were ever a recount--and there was after the 2004, when a survey of New Hampshire voting districts chosen by the Nader campaign showed there was virtual no difference between the scanned tabulation and the hand recount

    Indeed. But optically scanned ballots are not routinely counted. Often there is no recount. And recounts are typically limited to a small sample of all ballots cast. How small is too small is still a subject of much "discussion" among the various experts.

    While a candidate may have selected the districts, eliminating the possibility that only the "accurate" districts were included in the sample, this says nothing about whether the candidate had the qualifications needed to select a representative sample. It appears now that the counties that Gore's campaign selected for a recount in 2002 would not have changed the outcome of the election, while a statewide recount would have. In other words, the sample selected by the candidate was not representative of the population.

    the incentive for hacking them is not very great , because unlike with the paperless voting, again, there's the paper trail.

    The paper trail has zero impact on incentive. It impacts only the level of risk of being caught.  The incentive is the Presidency of the United States, paper trail or no. That's a lot of incentive; people have run far greater risks for far less.

    Has it not occurred to those people who know little or nothing about voting patterns in New Hampshire that the hundreds of staffers on the Obama and Edwards campaigns, who've immersed themselves in past voting data and models of expected vote turnouts for Tuesday, wouldn't these staffers have noticed discrepancies that might warrant a recount?

    I'm not personally familiar with the Obama or Edwards staffers, but my experience with campaign staffers thus far would not lead me to think that dozens, much less hundreds, had extensive training in analyzing models of expected voter turnout for discrepancies.  Nor even in mathematical modeling in general. Certainly the staffers who "cherrypicked" in 2000 picked some pretty poor cherries.

    In any case, this election doesn't belong to the campaign staffers. It belongs to the voters, and they have not only every right, but a duty to question anything and everything about the results that, in their opinion, warrants questioning. But it would help if they would direct their questions to someone qualfied to answer them, instead of to a concern diary. I know this requires a lot more effort, but what can I say... democracy is a pain in the *ss.

    All that aside, I don't think past voting data and models of expected voter turnout are particularly reliable tools for identifying irregularities in vote counts.  Every election is different, and past data is predictive only to the extent that the circumstances under which it was collected are the same as the circumstances you are trying to predict.

    if there were strange voting patterns, that showed up in discrepancies between towns that tabulated by hand vs those that tabulated the paper ballots with scanners, the rival campaigns would certainly have noticed

    Well, if the numbers posted around here are accurate, then there is, statistically speaking, a very legitimate basis for questioning why Hillary did better when votes were cast on ballots counted by optical scan and Obama did better when votes were cast on hand-counted paper ballots. These figures are decidedly indicative of some as-yet unidentified difference(s) between the two scenarios that affected the results.

    The first question to be asked is whether there are any differences between the populations using optical scans and those using hand-counted paper ballots that might explain this marked and as-yet-unexplained (as far as I know) discrepancy, other than one count was rigged and the other wasn't. (This is what is known as a "confounding variable.")

    I haven't seen anyone ask this question. I assume this is because no one arguing either side of the issue has the statistical or scientific training required to identify this question as the first one to be asked.

    In that case, what we have is the unqualified arguing pointlessly with the unqualified. Taken together with the smugness, condescension, and outright nastiness that has characterized the arguments on both sides, that is what makes this site look bad.

    The Senate is the last bastion of white supremacy. --Andrew Gumbel

    by Free Spirit on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:07:16 PM PST

  •  Looks like the OFB version of "sour grapes" to me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    milton333, Ericwmr, MikePhoenix

    Wouldn't the time after a defeat be better spent analyzing Obama's strengths and weaknesses and doing whatever retooling is needed for the next round?

    Wake me when BradBlog posts some hard evidence from the ground in NH (and not evidence that Diebold sucks, I know that).

    [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

    by lambertstrether on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:30:40 PM PST

  •  PLEASE tell me this isn't more progressive lunacy (5+ / 0-)

    That lunacy being of course the conspiracy theory that New Hampshire was rigged so Hillary would win.  I know all sorts of good progressives out there have turned into caricatures of the classic "shrill leftist" as they fall over themselves vilifying Hillary for everything under the sun, but PLEASE tell me it hasn't gone this far.

    •  Holy Crap!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DemFromCT

      I just mustered the intestinal fortitude to delve further into the comments threads and it does indeed appear that dKos is officially being infiltrated by progressive lunatics!  I've been doing my small part to point out such appearances, all along being called Republican-lite, or accused of "concern-trolling" but if anything serves as vindication for my ACTUAL concern this would appear to be it.  We really are, and by "we" I mean enough members that it could easily be percieved as a collective "us", becoming the ideological equivalents of the shrill, crazy right-wingers on the other side of the fence.  Can some of the folk with a louder voice start reigning this shit in, I'd like for dKos to remain a sensible and intellectually honest site for progressive change ... NOT whatever this idiocy portends.

  •  Please ignore this website while you are about it (5+ / 0-)

    http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

    All we know, or are ever likely to know, is that the means of adjusting the election results was available to the DLC governor and the DLC-controlled board of elections in New Hampshire. And surprise! we have yet another who-knew victory that doesn't match up with the pre-election polling! The beauty of Diebold, of course, is that after any Diebold-tabulated election there is absolutely no way to go back and verify the results, since the programming change is simple and undetectable. Of course someone can challenge the results and force a hand count of the paper ballots. As the Diebold people well know, challenging election results in all the states who use Diebold, for their primary elections and for the general election, is just realistically not going to happen.

    So we are left with the fact that it COULD have been rigged, not to mention the motive for rigging it: the NH governor is a DLC member.
    It's easy and fun to sneer at the researchers and programmers who have been trying valiantly for eight years, with a wealth of evidence, to alert the country to the possibility of election fraud in any state that uses Diebold touch-screen and/or paper ballot scanners and tabulating software. This country is in a losing battle for open elections. In the context of any Diebold-controlled election, the obvious question should be "did they use it?"  Calling such a possibility "garbage" is willfully uninformed and irresponsible.

    •  we're new (0+ / 0-)

      and were not here years ago when someone from bbv had a personality conflict with someone here, thereby making everything on the most important site on the net dedicated to this issue invalid.  Despite the fact that we have no idea what the fuck is going on, anything we may say that's even close to anything that's ever been said on black box voting is a conspiracy theory and we therefore deserve to be stripped naked and given millions of paper cuts all over our unclothed bodies.

      just so you know.

      If you have any questions, don't ask me.  I brainfucked by it all.

  •  You know what DHinMI? (6+ / 2-)

    Fuck you.  Seriously what is your problem?

    I am sitting here reading through your comments in addition to your diary and you come off as nothing but an insufferable prick.

    It is our duty and obligation to question results that are so far outside all of the polling and empirical evidence.   I dont give a shit if it is a Primary or a General election.

    For you to sit here an shit on folks for simply asking the question is about as far from progressive as one can get.  I hear David Addington is looking for an understudy - you seem like his type.

    For some time now I have been feeling that the DailyKos has jumped the shark with its shit candidate diaries dominating everything and assholes like this guy trying to stifle reasonable voices...

    All I am saying is its patriotic to ask and deman answers be it in a primary or a general.

  •  sounds (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lestatdelc, milton333, MikePhoenix

    sounds like this diary set the tin-foil beanie club off

  •  What is this supposed "garbage" we are told to (0+ / 0-)

    ignore?

    Since there is no link in this diary to the original assertians that incited this apparent rebuttal, I have no reference for comparison.

  •  Nice work destroying credibility in the general (4+ / 0-)

    pray God this stupid meme doesn't end up in Drudge and then on O'Reilly and Matthews. Lack of evidence has never stopped them.

    Then, WHEN there's Republican election theft in the general, all we're going to hear is "both sides do it" and "what about Hillary"?

    So, so stupid.

    [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

    by lambertstrether on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:55:03 PM PST

    •  The credibility of Diebold (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ashaman, forgore

      was long ago destroyed.  Their stock has plummeted, they have been sued by shareholders, they have changed the company name.
      The whole country is not going to sit up and pretend they believe Diebold all of a sudden.
      Now if they are forced to open up their
      systems, and offer transparency, so their work can be verified, and if they improve their product enough, then perhaps they can reclaim such credibility.
      If the polls contradict their totals that is a sign of real trouble, now or later.

      •  I'm totally with you but it's not the point! (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, Diebold sucks, yes it should all be open source, yes, yes, yes.

        But no matter what you might think, the country is not ready to conclude that Diebold involvement is prima facie evidence of election fraud, absent any other evidence from the ground (of which, in both Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, we had a ton).

        The issue is not Diebold, the issue is making charges stick in the general when there's evidence.

        [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

        by lambertstrether on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:17:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  metropolitan opera wing of Dems whine... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Leggy Starlitz

    Mudcat was onto something when he dissed the "metropolitan" wing of the Dem party. the upscale, volvo-driving, educated, secular elite represents a distinct faction of the Dem party, but certainly nowhere near dominates it. so it is continually funny and fascinating to see the circle jerk blogosphere annoint itself as true "Democrats" when most of us "real" Democrats don't agree with you. the Metropolitan wing that supported Bradley and Dean has now fizzled in NH too, with Obama doing poorly in working class and downscale areas.

    those working class NH downscale voters do not think pulling out all Iraq troops is so nifty and believe in a muscular foreign policy and are not social liberals akin to Berkeley or the Upper West Side. Perhaps why manchester was one of the better areas for Lieberman, who got 15% of the vote, not far off from Dean with 19% and kerry who drew 40%. and i think this may be a factor in why Obama was able to do much better among union/working class whites in IA vs. NH. IA has a much more pacifist, isolationist approach to foreign policy. those folks may have had trouble with Clinton's vote on the iran resolution, or her original IWR vote. doubtful Manchester and other NH downscale whites had the same concerns.

    the obsessions of the blogosphere--whether its FISA, abortion, gays, withdrawal from iraq--are not the concerns of the downscale beer wing of the Dem party. perhaps the only overlapping issue that i see consistently may be on health care that unites the beer wing with the merlot wing.

    so Obama better figure out something fast to connect with this segment of the party, which Ron Brownstein rightly noted months ago, but which was poohpoohed by David Axelrod. it's interesting that Michelle Obama's speeches stresses economic anxiety and her father's working class background much more effectively than Obama ever does, with his lofty reformist rhetoric. he should listen to his woman.  

    •  Your bragging about a Lieberman vote? (3+ / 0-)

      From my "Progressive Happy Hour" watch party here in Portland the breakdown between the candidates and their supporters were obvious.

      Hillary - Old(er)/White/Mostly Woman but in general they were just old

      Obama - Students, young, people of color

      Edwards - Union folks, mostly middle aged combined with populist progressive types.

      If anyone represents the "beer wing" its Edwards.

    •  Pooh-pooh this! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sirinek

      When using anti-progressive rhetoric and getting all "muscular" you might wanna stay away from panzy-assed words like "poohpoohed."

    •  Dam it ihlin, you left me out, prefer a stout ale (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ihlin, sirinek

      AND a lighter, fruitier vin (perhaps a vintage Boone's Farm).
      While i agree with much of your analysis, i think we are all better served if we don't limit ourselves to just 2 choices or just 2 groups or 2 ideas. There are a whole buncha' numbers to the left of 2.

      I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat. -Will Rogers

      by geez53 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:48:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thbbbbbbbbbbbbbfffflt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, auron renouille, sirinek

      There's nothing wrong with the "Metropolitan Opera," and using it as a pejorative only makes me dislike you.  I attended the Met regularly when I was in NYC, and it has quite the eclectic audience.  You see, they like diverse audiences and you would see young people, old people, minorities, etc.  With tickets as low as $25.00, it isn't necessarily a bastion of elitism.

      And I support Edwards.  I bet he'd go to the Met, too, if he had the time.

      I finally put in a signature!

      by Boris Godunov on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:36:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why does Kos have such a bully (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    feline, americangoy

    posting on the main page, hurling insults at people?
    It is not, as someone said above, either a progressive or a liberal attitude to become such a name calling bully.
    Rush Limbaugh comes to mind.

    •  DH is no bully, just a little miffed about puttin (0+ / 0-)

      so much effort into a diary that is not read before being commented on.
      Everyone is getting a bit antsy, it's primary time in the Democratic party. We'll get over it.

      I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat. -Will Rogers

      by geez53 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:32:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm calling bullsh!t on one point. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BrooklynJohnny, soros, Ashaman, forgore

    "

    If Tuesday's results really were the likely result of malfeasance, the Obama and Edwards campaigns would be raising holy hell.  They would be seeking a recount, and investigation of the voting, and they would be doing it because they saw the irregularities in the vote results.  

    I'd like to agree with you... but the 2000 and 2004 elections say otherwise, and say so convincingly!

  •  Welcome to the Democratic primiaries!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mayim

    As always DH, found much value in your diary.
    Also found value in some of the back and forth.
    So can we ALL take it down a notch please. We're only 1/20th of way through this thing. Let's not come off the rails.

    Unfortunately C&J is only on once a day.

    I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat. -Will Rogers

    by geez53 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:15:37 AM PST

    •  Um, those are the regular polls (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buckrogers1965

      The exit polls are those things the media was throwing about on how many men vs. women went for the various candidates, and who they voted for based on issue importance...  I don't know where to find raw data for those polls; it isn't usually available.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:20:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it is. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        buckrogers1965

        In my opinion (it is possible I am wrong - if so, please explain it to me and I would be grateful), the exit polls are both things at once.

        Exit polls are (or rather were) used to predict how people would vote.

        But pollsters being pollsters, they like their questions (insert smiley face here)...

        So they loaded the polls not just with "Who will you vote for?" but also "Why?", "Who do you dislike more?", and other questions.

        Right now the media reports all the inane questions WITHOUT reporting the main one - who won the exit poll.

        And if they do, it is usually to talk about all the other questions, and then try to explain how the answers people gave to those questions somehow make the MAIN question's answers (who won the exit poll?)  wrong.

        So they will basically use the fact that many older people vote, or that women voted for Clinton more than for others, or some such, and try to obfuscate the most important exit poll result.

        So as a citizen you will see this:
        http://www.latimes.com/...

        Instead of this:
        http://www.pollster.com/...

        •  Forgive me its late (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buckrogers1965

          Correct - this is the regular poll before the election; not the actual exit poll.

          But then again when all in the media (us included) talk about polls predicting an (say, for example) Obama win and Hillary loss, they are not basing it off exit polls, but polls before the vote.

          See here:
          http://www.pollster.com/...

          Direct quote:
          "There is obviously one and only one topic on the minds of those who follow polls today. What happened in New Hampshire? Why did every poll fail to predict Hillary Clinton's victory?

          Let's begin by acknowledging the obvious. There is a problem here. Even if the discrepancy between the last polls and the results turns out to be about a big last minute shift to Hillary Clinton that the polls somehow missed (and that certainly sounds like a strong possibility), just about every consumer of the polling data got the impression that a Barack Obama victory was inevitable. One way or another, that's a problem."

          Language like that reminds me very much of a certain Kerry/Bush election....

        •  the media did report on who won the exit poll (3+ / 0-)

          They called the McCain victory early, when a few precincts allowed them to confirm the large margin he had in the exit poll.

          They also chose not to call the Dem race until 67% of the vote was in, because the exit polls were very close, and it was too risky to call until you could see enough votes.

          •  Yes - but it seems an exit poll with a simple (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buckrogers1965

            "Who did you vote for?" question is VERY hard to find.

            Instead we get this:

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

            Every question we ever wanted answered BUT one...

            •  Here is where the 9 point Obama lead comes from: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buckrogers1965

              http://www.pollster.com/...

              The pre election polls, ALL of them, predicted an Obama win, and tabulating on average, it is Clinton 29, Obama  38.

              I repeat - ALL pre election polls predicted an Obama win.

              What gives?

              •  Pre-vote polling isn't a science (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                americangoy

                There's a post below that cites Zogby as saying on Sunday, Clinton had pulled back into a statistical tie with Obama, but the results weren't in time to factor into the three-day rolling average.

                This is the hazard of the condensed primary schedule.  Obama got a bounce from Iowa, but it was ephemeral.  Polling is usually a few days behind actual voter sentiment, so it caught the bounce and but failed to catch its dissipation.  Also take note that the independents did not come out for Obama nearly as much as the pre-vote polls said they would.  I think it's quite probable those inclined to vote for Obama thought he would win handily and decided to vote in the apparently-much-closer GOP race.

                Polls have been very wrong before based on a variety of factors that don't involve fraud.  The 1980 Presidential election comes to mind.

                I finally put in a signature!

                by Boris Godunov on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:30:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks for this (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Boris Godunov

                  Even though the blog post is done by a vindictive man with a mean streak and a huge ego (You will shut up about voter fraud!  Directions from the on high gods of the Democratic party elite!), I am overjoyed to read people's comments here and how intelligent they are.

                  I also learn a lot on the internet because of that; imagine that!

        •  exit polls are not used to predict races (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85

          or call winners. Winners are called when votes match the exit pol which matches previous reporting. Exit polls are used to figure out who voted for whom (which demographic). They should be reasonably accurate. When they are not, they need to be adjusted, and when they blow the call, they need to be reexamined.

          We went into this in great detail in 2004. there are still some excellent archives on the topic.

          So why do the networks shell out millions of dollars for exit polls? First, they do care about making projections as quickly as possible in the non-competitive states. While it is true that your or I could probably have "called" states like Indiana, Oklahoma or Massachusetts the day before the election with complete accuracy, news organizations are supposed to report only what they "know," not what they think they know. The exit polls in all the obvious states, with their huge, easily statistically significant margins provide hard confirmation of what everyone expects and thus provide a factual basis for the early projections.

          Second, they use the exit polls to fill airtime on election night with analysis about why the candidates won and lost. Or as the CNN post-election report put it less cynically in 2001: "Exit polling provides valuable information about the electorate by permitting analysis of such things as how segments of the electorate voted and what issues helped determine their vote." Four years ago, that same report argued against using exit polls to project winners, but endorsed the use of exit polls for analytical purposes. They concluded (p. 8 of the pdf):

             Total elimination of exit polling would be a loss, but its reliability is in question. A non-partisan study commission, perhaps drawn from the academic and think-tank communities, is needed to provide a comprehensive overview and a set of recommendations about exit polling and the linked broader problems of polling generally.

          Perhaps it is time to reconsider that recommendation.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:10:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  thanks DH (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Same As It Ever Was

    unbelievable, some people.

    Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

    by thereisnospoon on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:31:52 AM PST

  •  Namecalling (6+ / 0-)

    I am not impressed by the namecalling between various candidate factions. I am not impressed by the namecalling of this particular front page story. I have read through the evidence here and on the "conspiracy" blog articles. I found more discussion with analysis and evidence on the "conspiracy" blog articles. I come here for thoughtful consideration and meaningful discussion. If I just wanted namecalling and namecalling pictures, I could go to any Republican blog.

  •  "Trust. But Verify" (7+ / 0-)

    Seems simple enough to me, especially after everything we've been through.  In far too many precincts there haven't been any upgrades to assure accuracy and legitimacy.   It's not about conspiracy theories.  It's about The People having confidence that their vote is being counted, accurately.   I'd like to see live random audits of a few precincts---preferably on C-Span without the punditry soundtrack.  Doesn't have to be riveting tv, just transparent.   butthatsjustme.

    •  Exactly, Well said, and Ditto (0+ / 0-)

      Hope i'm not being to verbose.;}

      I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat. -Will Rogers

      by geez53 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:56:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent point... (0+ / 0-)

      ..and perhaps a ...what's the word... SANE point we could get the vast majority here to agree on. Perhaps mandatory sample auditing ought to be a matter of routine, especially if this confidence problem persists.

      My horse lost in NH, but I'm not going so ballistic over this that I've blurred the difference between final pre-election polling and exit polling.

      Then again, considering 2000 and Ohio 04, I can also understand how this reaction might crop up a little easier than usual.

      Your comment ought to be front paged for however long these primaries last, as I have a sick feeling the rigged-election fight gets added to that list of gender wars, age wars, broader candidate wars, and all the other shit flying around here lately.

  •  I want to be a part of this comment string too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Same As It Ever Was

    ummmm...The Redcoats are coming!

  •  It was "The Bradley Effect" (0+ / 0-)

    I don't blame anyone for believing that our elections have been hacked, but in this case the paper trail is there to be audited.  The New Hampshire primary was a case of people lying to the pollsters, and this does not portend well for predicting the results of future primaries.

  •  funny shift of opinion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    forgore, buckrogers1965

    over the last two years there have been dozens of stories about diebold corp. and the criminals that run it.  Many have made the rec list...  there is certainly a lot of interest in this subject but we'll throw all of that into the wind now that the primaries are on.

    It all makes sense after the shrooms and the purple haze!

    by soros on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:36 AM PST

    •  apples and oranges (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, PaintyKat

      there are major problems with e-voting. We all agree. We should insist that paper ballots and paper trails exist everywhere. We all agree.

      This post is not an attack on those concerned about e-voting. It's about the nonsensical declaring that this primary was hacked.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:38:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The CT CT: There's a conspiracy to holler CT (7+ / 0-)

    at anyone who asks for a manual recount of a random optical scanner voting district!  

    Seriously, are the officials who conduct random drug tests on athletes conspiracy theorists? No, they are just being vigilant, because these athletes go to great lengths to win at all cost.  Guess what?  So do politicians!

    Why don't we scrutinize our elections as much as we do baseball?  Why are people threatening to ban those of us who advocate for vote verification, whether or not we think fraud has occurred?

    Yes, the ballots are paper, which is good, but it's very easy to hack the optical scanner tallies.  The ballots should be manually checked, as a matter of course, against the machine count of a few randomly chosen districts to ensure that our elections are secure.  

    As it stands, a politician can cheat to his or her heart's content, with impunity, because everyone has been cowed not to dare ask that these paper ballots ever see the light of day unless they can prove that there was fraud.  That's ridiculous!  We are really a bunch of chumps not to be doing what the sports authorities do: random vote verification!

    I actually do think that there are some people commenting here against accountability with way too much rancor to be just "concerned about the integrity of this website."  If only they were half as concerned about the integrity of thier Presidential elections!  

    I just wonder why they're getting so angry and buggy over something that is perfectly reasonable.

    •  My favorite story? Hand entering scans into DREs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotdot, buckrogers1965

      While reading on this subject just now I came on a report on BlackBoxVoting.org where observers had caught the election officials in one case taking the hand filled ballots that were supposed to scanned into a back room, and manually entering the votes into a DRE touch screen voting machine there.

      It is NOT a conspiracy theory to suggest that the unwise, too rapid implementation of untrustworthy technology capable of easy manipulation is the greatest threat to our electoral system we have faced in quite some time.

      Those who are willing to manipulate the results of an election WILL DO SO, and it seems irrational to me to just put better means of doing it in their hands.

      Hmmm. I see that my ability to troll rate reappeared over night, after an absence of several months. It will be interesting to see what happens to it after this dust up by some of us lunatics who don't trust electronic voting for obvious reasons.

    •  see comment above (0+ / 0-)

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:40:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's not one single catch-all answer to this.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemFromCT, MikePhoenix, mayim

    Bradley effect, tears effect, NH "contrarian" effect, Obama voters getting too confident and ducking the long lines, 18 percent last minute deciders....Indies in a more libertarian state breaking more for McCain and Paul, People comfortable with Obama's margin and deciding to vote against Romney

    Yes, like virtually every other election, one will most certainly find a "human error" component of some sort....accident or otherwise.

    There's some case to be made for all of these and then some...probably a little truth in each one.

    Maybe that's generalizing and not an iron-clad case, but there's more substance there than to assume Diebold and all the exit pollsters collaborated in some grand scheme.

    Exit polls held up....As an Obama supporter, I started doubting "blowout" when the media didn't call our race almost immediately after the polls closed. When they called the supposedly tighter GOP race first, we had to know something was giving reason for the pause.  Exit polls showed registered Democrats breaking for "experience" over "personal qualities" by double digits...that was one of the first exit poll nuggets to trickle out on TV, and in retrospect, really should have been one of the first big clues.

  •  Obama-ites Cult of Personality (0+ / 0-)

    Just goes to show the fundamentally irrational basis of allegiance for many Obama supporters.  They just cannot, WILL NOT, understand why some of the whitest most conservative, anti-union democrats in the country might support the most corporate Democrat in the race, who happens to be from a neighboring state.

    Wake the fuck up!

    -9.00, -5.85
    The reward for courage is trust. -- John Edwards

    by Wintermute on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:54:12 AM PST

  •  This is one of the most insulting front pagers... (7+ / 0-)

    I think the author of this front page story should be ashamed of themselves. What is this, RedState or LittleGreenFootballs? Should the author have included a snap of the Death Star to make the article complete and more effective? Or is this DailyKos.

    There is a diary posted a few minutes ago:

    San Diego Voters Confront Board of Supervisors

    I started to post the following there, but I think it goes here.

    According to a trusted front page poster this morning, posting conspiracy theory stuff about elections and the dangers of manipulating DRE or even electronic scanners of paper ballots (which manipulation has been clearly demonstrated by experts) is lunacy, and harms the image of the site.

    Shame on you, you lunatic. The minions of the mighty KOS insist you cease and desist from any further posts suggesting that our electoral process is not the bestest in the world.

    So cut it out.

    The problem is, for the past several years even the optical scanning equipment of the sort used in New Hampshire has been clearly demonstrated by experts to be hackable through manipulation of chip sets.

    "The famous "Hursti Hack" of the memory card in the voting system version used in New Hampshire preloaded the card with minus and plus votes, passed the "zero test" at the beginning of the day, and after 6 no and 2 yes votes were fed through it, pronounced election totals of 7 yes and 1 no. Yes, these are the cards Hajjar totes in trunk. "

    New England voting machine firm has executive criminal record

    Of course you can just google:

    hack new hampshire scanning ballot

    and starting reading the page after page after page of articles discussing actually proven hacks, demonstrated by experts, of even optical scanning machines for the past few years.

    You can also read about what a great guy runs the company that has the contract for these scanners in New Hampshire, and the stories of him operating out of a suitcase full of chips and not following election day procedures and protocol.

    All this of course only if you are a luney who wants to be assured your elections are honestly conducted, and your votes counted and capable of audit.

    "Quis custodiet Custodies ipsi" should be the watchword of this site. Not "You are a bunch of raving lunatics if you dare to question whether an election might have been manipulated, despite the fact we have now lived through two such presidential elections in a row."

    Heck, why not go for three this year?

    •  "hacks" of paper ballot counting are a waste of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, MikePhoenix

      time. A recount by hand is too easy to do. In fact, it was done in 2004, as the main post points out.

      However, the incentive for hacking them is not very great, because unlike with the paperless voting, again, there's the paper trail.  So if there were ever a recount—and there was after the 2004 election, when a survey of New Hampshire voting districts chosen by the Nader campaign showed there was virtually no difference between the scanned tabulation and the hand recount—the malfeasance would be easily discovered.

      Of all the states to bring up election fraud, NH has to be near the bottom of the list.

      As to the desire to discuss, discuss away. But as Daniel P Moynahan famously said, you can have your own opinion but you can't have your own facts. You can be unhappy with optical scanners without declaring fraud. And relying on conspiracy sites that exist to prove fraud, with poor track records of same, is not particularly enlightening.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:19:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gad, I should hope not (0+ / 0-)

      "Quis custodiet Custodies ipsi" should be the watchword of this site.

      Somewhere Juvenal is rolling over in his grave. The correct quotation is:

      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

      Who will guard the guardians?

      --Decimus Junius Juvenalis, Saturae VI.347-48

  •  Nonsense (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rmwarnick, buckrogers1965

    "But ultimately, there's tremendous arrogance and/or ignorance at play when people assume that Hillary Clinton's victory in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary is or might be explained by election fraud."

    I certainly don't think anyone stole any primary.

    But saying this does a disservice.

    CLEARLY, the Republicans have built a poisonous atmosphere of electoral cynicism cetered on the technology of balloting and the "legal technology" of disenfranchisement. The Democrats let them do it.

    It's been pretty well determined that Ohio was stolen by the Bush camp, one way or another. (It would be interesting to ban a state from the next election if there's evidence of fraud, but I digress ...)

    In a stupid little test I performed with a co-worker in the last election here in Maryland (where the Accu-Craps are still in use) we promised to write one another in for County Treasurer. Due to a technicality, the position was on the ballot even after the county's charter had been changed to eliminate the position, so voting for anyone was pointless).

    She showed up on the write-in list that I obtained after the election. I did not.

    Until every election has a paper trail, or we go to open-source voting, this says it for me.

    •  it actually hasn't been determined that at all (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, HudsonValleyMark

      Ohio voter suppression in 2004 is a hard fact, and so is disenfranchisement. Ohio stolen election in 2004 is anything but fact. just saying it does not make it true.

      In fact, insisting that a disputed fact is a fact is the fastest way to reduce credibility.

      Don't confuse that for support for e-voting, fraught with problems. Don't confuse that with dirty tricks and voter suppression or disenfranchisement. But fraud requires a high standard of proof. It was never reached in 2004.

      Until every election has a paper trail, or we go to open-source voting, this says it for me

      NH has a paper trail, which is why this post was written. paper trails should exist everywhere. No one is saying otherwise. OTOH, implying that NH, with its paper ballot, was hacked is baying at the moon. It is to those people that this post is addressed.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:29:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Paper trail only good if examined (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lysias, kitebro, relentless, forgore

        The paper trail is a good start, but we need a required verification process.  Some reasonable sized sample, perhaps as small as 1%, needs to be recounted by hand just to make sure that the automatic system worked.

        It could be the poll models were badly off, or it could be that someone accidentally reversed the Hillary and Obama rows on the optical scanner.  A statistical recount would be a very appropriate verification, and it exactly the reason for keeping a paper trail around.

        •  it is, indeed, the reason for paper trails (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85

          and i don't have strong feelings about when it should be verified (full recount on suspicion, partial recount, spot checks etc). The ability to verify solves most of the problems by eliminating impetus. Cost and practicality will determine the rest (a local decision).

          in the end, i love this piece by Josh marshall:

          It's true I guess that in an abstracted reality we could simply listen to the candidates, ignore all probabilistic data available, go to the polls with no idea of the result and learn the outcome the following morning. But that's not the world we live in nor do I think it's one I'd want to live in.

          This result doesn't make me second guess polling and (if you can separate out the reporting that assumed Hillary was headed for defeat from that which engaged in various psychobabble about her) it doesn't make me second guess the reportage either. This is simply an upset, a dramatic, unexpected result. I suspect it came about because of some mix of the Saturday debate and Hillary's moment of unvarnished emotion yesterday. But it might as easily be the case that the Obama surge was just ephemeral and dissipated on its own.

          I certainly didn't suspect this outcome for a moment and I strongly suspect that very few in the Clinton campaign did either.

          Why that should produce disgust or leave people disenchanted about the incorrect expectations that made it an upset is something I really don't understand. This is just a matter of the fact that no outcome is certain before the votes are cast. And to me, it's one of the exciting and wonderful things about the democratic process.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:16:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yup (0+ / 0-)

        In fact, insisting that a disputed fact is a fact is the fastest way to reduce credibility.

        Funny, how many people don't understand that and then complain when they they aren't taken seriously.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:10:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  According to Bradblog, on 20% hand counted (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ashaman, forgore

    The statements by this DHinMI differ from the election integrity watchdogs at Bradblog. Brad claims 20% of ballots in NH are hand counted. Obama did best there, whereas Hillary did better where the machines were involved. Not proof that anything happened, but I'd point out that even having paper ballots doesn't prove anything unless there are random spot-checks.

    Investigate War Lies --> Evidence for Senate Conviction --> End the War. Got it?

    by bejammin075 on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:45:21 AM PST

    •  it's true that the existence of paper ballots (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, PaintyKat, Clem Yeobright

      isn't the same thing as a recount. The point is that with paper ballots the impetus to hack isn't there. that's why we need paper trails everywhere, not just NH.

      Not proof that anything happened

      is good to recognize. It's sort of a a key fact, actually. ;-)

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 04:56:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No proof without looking (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kitebro, forgore

        You can't find proof that anything happened if you never look at the paper trail.

        It might not be a hack, a simple programming error that reversed two rows (Hillary/Obama) could explain the odd results.  But we should not trust unusual results without at least a minimal attempt at verification.  If you say there was no hacking, I say show me.

        •  heh (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, PaintyKat, Clem Yeobright

          elections don't exist to prove things to you. if NH voters doubt, they can put pressure on the SoS, but they have to pay for it. the mechanism for challenge needs to be in place. it doesn't always have to be invoked.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:19:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Paper trails won't deter hacking, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        forgore

        if the hackers are confident that the trails will not be checked.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:02:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's true, I guess (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PaintyKat

          but with the existence of paper ballots and the precedent of a 2004 recount in NH, why would they be confident the trails would not be checked? How could anyone be confident of that?

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:22:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Depends on who is doing the checking (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            forgore

            or who is not doing it.

            And,as we saw in Ohio,two elections workers are in jail for rigging a recount in 2004.

            Another question. Who says that the path of least resistance will not be taken?

            When you have tens of thousands and/or millions of ballots to recount,would you want to spend your time and money doing that? I don't think so.

            The normal reaction is the wink and nod "Looks good to me.".

            •  again, mixing apples with oranges (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PaintyKat

              what's likely to happen isn't what possibly can happen.

              I personally like this idea. But that, as Elwood points out, has little to do with what did or doidn't happen in NH.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with Kucinich that a full hand count (0+ / 0-)

                must be done for all electronic votes cast in NH.

                It is only then that we will know whether or not the polls were right or wrong or the results were right or wrong.

                This,however,is unlikely to happen because the fraudulent programming of the voting machines will be exposed and guess what that means:

                People will realize that real democracy in America does not exist contrary to what we want to believe.

                •  now, this is tin foil (0+ / 0-)

                  It is only then that we will know whether or not the polls were right or wrong or the results were right or wrong.

                  Doubts are understandable, but then you say this:

                  This,however,is unlikely to happen because the fraudulent programming of the voting machines will be exposed and guess what that means:

                  Here's what that means: despite your first statement, you've already decided what happened. You are asserting that there was fraud in NH. You are claiming it was done on behalf of HRC (you must be, because the polls were right about everyone else). You are presupposing the decision to recount, and the results if they do. You, of course, have zero evidence of fraud or anything else.

                  As the diary title notes, lunacy.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by Greg Dworkin on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Since you are so quick to insinuate what I (0+ / 0-)

                    may or may not have decided and then concluded that you would assign a label to my views,it might now be a good idea to bring up what you have apparently decided.

                    1. I do not know whether you are an HRC supporter or not but you seem to have no problem writing off Obama whose results also differed from his polling numbers. So it takes at least two candidates for that to happen.
                    1. You seem to be quite certain and trusting that no full hand count is necessary even though such a count would conclusively prove that either you are right or I am. You say I have no evidence of fraud but a full hand count would give us both that evidence that there was or was not.
                    1. For whatever reason,you appear to have a closed mind on this issue which baffles me other than that you fear that there will be bad news arising out of the recount for your political favorites.

                    By the way,I am assuming from your moniker that you are a Connecticut resident. You might be interested to know if you don't already that Connecticut will be using the same Diebold optical scan voting machines programmed by the same company in their elections. The only difference with NH is that there was hand counting in 25% of NH precincts which allowed a comparison of results as opposed to machine counted precincts something that will not be available in CT. But that's OK isn't it for you since you believe that whatever the machine says cannot be questioned.

                    •  hmmmm... (0+ / 0-)
                      1. as for my opinion on Obama, that's easy to find. And no, his numbers did not differ from the polls. Obama polled at 37% and got 37%. Edwards polled at 18% and got 17%. McCain polled at 34 and got 37%. Your factual inaccuracies detract from your argument.
                      1. NH has been recounted before.

                      The Nader-Camejo hand recount in New Hampshire will begin this Thursday. Nader-Camejo requested recounts in 11 wards where the results seemed anomalous in their support for President Bush and where the votes were counted on optical scan machines – primarily the Diebold AccuVote Machine. This Thursday five wards in Manchester and Litchfield will be recounted. The remaining six wards will be recounted soon.

                      The Nader-Camejo campaign received more than 2,000 faxes from citizens concerned about the vote count who urged the campaign to request a hand recount in New Hampshire. (Review the request for a hand recount in New Hampshire.)

                      "Voters need to have confidence that their vote is being counted accurately. A hand recount of suspect results will either rule out the possibility of machine error or show a discrepancy between the machine and the actual vote count – either way voters need to know," said Nader. "Even in an election year with record turnout tens of millions of Americans did not vote. We need to give people a reason to vote and that begins with ensuring votes are counted accurately."

                      Similar comments, eh? And what was the result?

                      In New Hampshire, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's requested 11-precinct hand recount ended with results changing little from initial tallies. Nader spokeswoman Amy Belanger called the results "a good statistical representation of the state."

                      been there, done that, learned from it. You should, too. NH has a long track record of good government, honest counts and recounts that match the machines. NH also has a paper trail for recounts. You are picking the wrong state to bitch about. Every state should be like NH and insist on a paper trail.

                      1. I know all about CT, which has paper trails. It's not New England I am worried about. And I don't have a political favorite. But I do know illogical thinking when I see it, and you are exhibiting it.

                      If there's a reason for a recount, then do a recount and let NH pay for it. You pay for it otherwise.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by Greg Dworkin on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 03:57:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thanks for engaging in this good back and forth (0+ / 0-)

                        I am now in receipt of good news from the SoS of New Hampshire in that a full hand recount will be commenced on January 16th of both the Democratic and Republican primaries.

                        I understand that there might be chain of custody issues which may be a detracting factor in the process but they have made the right decision.

                        According to the SoS,this is the first time this has been done since 1980.

    •  "election integrity watchdogs"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PaintyKat

      Try "election integrity asshats." Bradblog has about as much credibility as Faux News.

      •  less in fact (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85

        I tried to read over there when Sheehan was in Texas and I couldn't wade through the BS that floated for facts and if anyone had the audacity to question the mob attacked.  A few idiots control the discussions but they come over here to try to start trouble.

        I thought folks got past blackbox thinking.  Not so much.

        PaintyKat

        WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

        by PaintyKat on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:22:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  no, Brad needs to read DHinMI (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DHinMI, Clem Yeobright, capitalsfn

      As if.

      The voting method is confounded with geography. If you compare apples to apples, there is no significant relationship between voting method and Clinton's performance.

      More specifically: using (X1) Kerry's margin over Dean in 2004 and (X2) the use of optical scanners to predict (Y) Clinton's margin over Obama, Kerry's margin is a strongly significant predictor, but the use of op-scans is a statistical wash.

      Someone might say that the scanners were rigged against Dean -- but, if so, I don't remember anyone howling about it at the time, and that may have been because Kerry's 13-point win was in line with pre-election polls.

    •  You lost me at (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DHinMI, HudsonValleyMark

      "According to Bradblog"

  •  Guilty (0+ / 0-)

    Until proven innocent.  Send an investigative journalist in there.  I am tired of the lame reasons given as to how and why Billary won.  Crocodile tears, women's sympathy blah, blah.  Bullshit!

    Obama in 08!

  •  JOHN ZOGBY (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boris Godunov

    My polling showed Clinton doing well on the late Sunday night and all day Monday – she was in a 2-point race in that portion of the polling. But since our methods call for a three-day rolling average, we had to legitimately factor the huge Obama numbers on Friday and Saturday – thus his 12 point average lead. Unfortunately, one day or a day–and–a–half does not make a trend and we ran out of time.

    This is the answer.  There was movement back to Clinton prior to the "tears."  Obama's bounce was ephemeral.

    He tightened the race, but couldn't close the deal.  Enough of those people who'd supported Clinton all year  voted for her.  So she won.

  •  Let's be proactive (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemFromCT, relentless, BuyLocal

    Yes Hillary won on Tuesday, Congrats! But I think as democrats we need to be proactive and make sure all voting machines and processes for the general election are up to par. I was an Ohio voter who waited in the rain for 3 hours during the 2004 election and many of my friends were people in Cleveland who did not get a fair chance to vote. I was committed to voting so I stayed in line, but people should not be expected to make sacrifices of health and jobs to get a chance to vote.
    The stealing of elections issue may not be warranted for this past Tuesday, but let us not forget 2000 and 2004.
    I think every person has a right to question the election process regardless of voting patterns. The questions people have also speak volumes about the lack of trust Americans have towards democracy and politics. Rather than attacking people for their opinions, a proactive effort should be made by all campaigns to make sure that in November; Republicans and Democrats, Blacks and Whites, Male and Females all are able to participate in a free and fair election.

    •  You're correct (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      forgore

      This isn't about who won or lost on Tuesday, delegate counts won't change significantly.  We need to question results now to find any problems in the vote tabulating procedure to safeguard future elections so that 2000 and 2004 doesn't happen again.  BTW, i remember Folks at KOS not liking us talking about this issue after 2004 as well.  Without open elections we have no democracy.

      Be the change you want!

      by BuyLocal on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:18:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You Have a Faulty Memory (0+ / 0-)

        We've been talking about voting integrity around here since long BEFORE 11-7-2004.  What we don't put up with is unsubstantiated, even refuted claims of fraud when there's no evidence to support the accusation, because that's a form of crying wolf and actually hurts the movement to have cleaner, more transparent and more accurate elections.  

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:15:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is ridiculous (4+ / 0-)

    It is ludicrous to blame people for thinking there is fraud.  Calling them conspiracy theorists is just stupid.

    With all the election fraud (proven!) since 2000, and states STILL using these machines, what is wrong with those who think there ISN'T fraud?

    Any thinking, non-fraudulent citizen SHOULD question all this.  And if you make fun of those folks, YOU are the dweeb.  And likely crooked.

  •  ...why it took so long to change my registration. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemFromCT

    First off, I'm supporting Edwards in the primaries- so you may factor in whether or not you feel that colors my views.

    The instant "conspiracy theories" out of the rabid Obama supporters (and have you ever met a lukewarm Obama supporter) is an example of what turned me off about the Democratic Party for so long (yes, I'm a white, Christian Southerner, why do you ask?): The general sense that it is INCONCEIVABLE that an intelligent person could look at all of the facts and hold a differing opinion. Usually, it goes further than that- you aren't just stupid, you're EVIL. In this particular race, it seems that there is an added layer of "if you don't vote for Obama, you are racist scum" (I could pre-write all of the comments that are going to come out about that if/when Obama loses some of the Southern states.

    "Change" is the buzzword of this campaign, but not everyone is comfortable with a seismic shift. Particularly in the current chaotic military and economic climate, it has to be expected that "the devil you know" is going to be comforting and anchoring to certain people. Obama's support from the younger crowd adds a lot of excitement and energy to his campaign, but I think we need to look at WHY older people were more likely to vote for Clinton: they've seen a lot more life and a lot more radical change and know that the best intentions don't always lead to the desired outcomes (In fact, this is why I am not in the Obama camp. While no one can deny the power of his rhetoric, I don't think that his ideas are as practical as some of the other candidates).

    Finally, re: "the crying incident"- I haven't even watched it. I know it would make me cringe. As a professional woman, I know how damned impossible it is to be simultaneously feminine and in-control.

    When we resort to the "Hillary is a bitch/witch", "Hillary is a ballbuster", "Hillary is an Ice Queen" cliche, we are accepting a stereotype that my daddy used to parrot after Rush Limbaugh 12 years ago.

    All of our candidates deserve better than to be "Hillary the woman/bitch", "Obama the black man" and "Edwards the working man's dandy".

    •  When women became part of our government (0+ / 0-)

      especially in the congress and senate, I thought things would be better.

      Women are usually the compassion and soul of their family.  I thought there would be more thoughtful and peaceful government with women in it.

      The women who make to power seem to want to prove they are tough.  So do the female prosecutors.  Compassion and reasoning for a peaceful solution seems to have been disgarded, so maybe it is their aggressive personality that got them to the top, I don't know.

      I am a woman so I know what they are dealing with when they do have to get others, especially men, to do what they want them to do.  Men can make women turn into bitches, by disregarding what they want and by thinking they know better than the woman.  But still, it isn't all about authority, part of it should be about peace and social justice.

    •  I'm a lukewarm Obama supporter (0+ / 0-)

      Just so you know we DO exist.

      The company you keep says a lot about the person you are.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:03:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Since when have diaries about conspiracy theories (0+ / 0-)

    been allowed here? Back in 2004 when people were questioning the vote tally's in Ohio, diarists were threatened with being banned if they posted anything about conspiracy theories.  I guess if the Dem's win in November, the Republicans can blame the voting machines.

    Delegate count after Iowa (not including super delegates, who may or may not remain pledged): Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14

    by Nelsons on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 06:05:24 AM PST

  •  It makes sense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Templar

    to hand count the ballots every time. This would remove all doubts.  There are several reasons to hand count.

    If Obama had asked for a handcount, then was wrong, it would have made him look like a sore loser and hurt him in future votes.

    The state where there is a request for a hand count takes it personal and feels they are too honest for a rigging to happen in their state.

    Others who think the polls and the vote don't match, so they request a hand count, are treated like 'conspiricy nuts'.

    We used to always hand count and the votes were all counted by early morning. (except where there were more votes than registered voters.)

    I don't think I will vote again until there is a way to make sure there is a true vote count.

    •  Exactly Why The Conspiracy Theorists are Toxic (0+ / 0-)

      Because it breeds passivity.  

      That you embrace the passivity even after having the opportunity to see that it's stupid, well, I guess some people will believe what they want to believe.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:18:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is hand counting the votes passive? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jexter

        I'm afraid I don't see that.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:25:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You've completely lost you're mind.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HeartlandLiberal

        It is the unquestioning that are passive. If you had any credibility with me at all, it would all be gone with that ridiculous statement.

        The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.
        Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
        In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
        Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
        Look at all the sentences which seem true and question them.
        David Reisman
        A thinker sees his own actions as experiments and questions--as attempts to find out something. Success and failure are for him answers above all.
        Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 41
        One's first step in wisdom is to question everything - and one's last is to come to terms with everything.
        Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742 - 1799)
        It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.
        James Thurber (1894 - 1961)
        There are two sides to every question.
        Protagoras (485 BC - 421 BC), from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers
        The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and therefore never scrutinize or question.
        Stephen Jay Gould (1941 - 2002)
        The outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow where only one grew before.
        Thorstein Veblen (1857 - 1929)
        Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
        Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

        "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

        by dotdot on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:16:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reading is Fundamental (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          dotdot

          I don't think I will vote again until there is a way to make sure there is a true vote count.

          by relentless on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:36:20 AM EST

          You're an idiot.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:19:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excuse me.... (0+ / 0-)

            WTF are you talking about. You really have gone off the deep end, I didn't write that.

            "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

            by dotdot on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:25:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hilarious (0+ / 0-)

              I know you didn't write it.  I also know you didn't read it, or you would know that that's what I was referring to when I talked about passivity.  

              Not only are you demonstrating to everyone who will read this thread that you spout off on things without bothering to know wtf you're talking about, you're also a small, petty person for dispensing retaliatory troll ratings.  

              Self-imposed stupidity is bad enough.  A compulsion to demonstrate that self-imposed stupidity is worse.  But it's even more pathetic when you combine it with pettiness.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:50:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Agree. Exit polls were in line with final results (0+ / 0-)

    That was not the case in the 2004 and other elections in which it is clear that Diebold was a factor.

    Or in some cases the vote counts or exit polls flipped suddenly hours into the election returns.

    Divergence between the exit polls and final results was a major factor that threw doubt on the election outcome, and suspicions on the Diebold systems.

    The tabulators are crap, but Diebold is linked to the GOP.

    May the stock value continue to decline, the stockholders continue to rebel and sue the company, and Diebold be gone asap.

    •  That's not what Chris Matthews apparently said. (4+ / 0-)

      Apparently, he said on air that the unadjusted exit polls showed a significant Obama victory.  Apparently, it was only after the exit polls were adjusted to conform to the reported results that the two conformed.  But of course they conformed -- that was the point of the adjustment.

      I don't know for a fact that this happened in NH the other day, just that BRAD BLOG is reporting that is the case, and that there is apparently a video clip of Chris Matthews saying this.  But I do know, on the basis of a lot of reading, that this is precisely what happened in 2004.

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:44:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  there was a 4-5% Obama win via exit poll (0+ / 0-)

        reported in various news sources. But misunderstanding exit polls in 2004 hasn't stopped us from misunderstanding exit polls in 2008. They and the other polls just blew the call, then and now. That happens from time to time in close elections.

        The media polls had Obama higher, so media compared to exit showed a tightening lead for Obama. That much is clear. The rest, not so clear. But fraud has nothing to do wioth the results.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:27:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Consider the source, Matthews. (0+ / 0-)

        In 2006 I was watching the exit polls on one of the Governer's races.  I'd noted early in the day that the exit polls showed the Democrat winning.

        I multiplied it all out and added the numbers up.

        Then I went back again to look, and they had changed hours after the polls closed.

        I wrote the web site and asked how is this possible hours AFTER the polls closed?

        I also brought this to the attention of lot of folks on a blog I was posting to at the time.  It was like okay let's watch that race closely.

        Later they went back to what they'd been with the Democrat winning.

        Adjusting exit polls to fit the outcome would be like going back and adjusting all the pre-election polls to the outcome.

        Not supposed to work that way.

        Chris Matthews isn't an authority I'd rely on.

        K. Olbermann had a more rational take on the whole thing.

        The uncertains or soft commitments were high in the pre-election polls. And even in the hand tabulated precincts Hillary still exceeded the pre-election polls.

  •  Our voting process should be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro, forgore

    one where any reasonable person would never have any concerns about the integrity of the outcome. If the system is so honest and perfect, why are some of us still in doubt concerning the outcome?

    The very fact that some of us (and, for the most part, reasonable individuals) still have honest concerns about the election outcome clearly demonstrates that the present system is flawed and changes are still required so we would never have these doubts.

    I frankly don't know whether this election was "rigged" or not, but, the very fact that I don't know for certain bothers me deeply.

    When we takeover the WH next January, one of the first priorities should definitely be to restore the integrity of the election process.

  •  NH should be hand counted anyway (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, kitebro, Templar

    A hand count should be made by local people.

    Did I misread Paul's site?  It looked like Obama won when the votes were hand counted and Hillary won when the diebold machine did the counting.

    That is why there should always be a hand count EVERY TIME.  Just to keep diebold honest and our elections accurate.

    An automatic hand count would help assure an honest election, if you get honest counters.

    •  No, what it's showing (0+ / 0-)

      is that HRC did better in areas that used Diebold machines for counting, and Obama did better in areas that used handcounts only.

      Not that all the votes in the state were counted once by Diebold machines and once by hand, and the two totals did not match.

      And this in itself proves nothing, because urban areas tended to use Diebold machines and rural areas tended to use handcounts.  And guess who does better among urban Democrats in NH, and who does better among rural Democrats in NH?

      That's why we're not hearing much from people who actually live in New Hampshire on this.  If nothing else, a person generally knows the voting patterns of their own community.  People who live in the areas Clinton won are not surprised that their areas voted for Clinton, and people who live in the areas Obama won are not surprised that their areas voted for Obama.

      And finally, for all that Obama "lost" NH, he walked away with the same number of delegates as HRC did, and she squeaked out such a narrow win in votes that it does nothing to diminish Obama's viability.  Not much payoff for cheating...

  •  I think you're wrong on this. Enjoy your ad $s. (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    kiss my left behind, rmwarnick
    Hidden by:
    Same As It Ever Was

    And  won't use quite the same words as others, but I think your and Kos's attitude towards concerns about these election machines is not only unreasonable, but it is reckless.  

    You are putting your salaries, advertising dollars, and place at the table ahead of our democracy, and I find that disgusting.

    Have a nice day.

  •  What's the good of there being a paper trail, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale, rmwarnick, forgore

    if it is not checked?

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:45:08 AM PST

  •  Election fraud has been a reality for as long (4+ / 0-)

    as there has been elections. I believe one of our greatest presidents benifited from it(JFK). I hope we will investigate reasonable charges of it regardless of who the benificiary is. To call it lunacy is a scary thing. Will this join the list of banned topics? I hope not. The results of this election make sense. I simply would like any irregularities looked into or at least explained in  a way that doesn't sound like a crock. In 2004 the media suggested that Bush voters didn't fess up to the exit pollsters about their choice. They were embarrased. Yet years later they still had their "W04" stickers on their cars. The explaination I've heard about NH sounds just as rediculous. A logical explaination might satisfy me. A random hand count of some of the more questionable results would likely put this topic to rest. Without it, there will always be a reason to doubt the veracity of the results and the trustworthyness of our current election process. I want our votes to put this next president into office.

    The Bush Administration changed everything.

    by kitebro on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:45:40 AM PST

    •  What Does "Reasonable Charges" Have to Do... (0+ / 0-)

      ...with the NH primary?  Can you cite any "reasonable charges" that the results were rigged?  That's the entire point of this post, that the charges that it was rigged are absolutely NOT "reasonable charges."  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:22:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  With all due respect (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        forgore

        what did you cite? Can I cite any proof about 2004? Not really. Nothing definitive. Can I cite anything about 1960? Hardly. If you have something to explain the anomalies definitively, great! Perhaps shows like Hardball are insane. Maybe exit polls were only flawless for Dems until 2000. They still work for the GOP. Maybe this is paranoid ranting. I just haven't seen an answer to the questions. And as far as I can see, this site hasn't provided any. But maybe I'm just a lunatic.

        The Bush Administration changed everything.

        by kitebro on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:40:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bradblog is Stupid Ranting (0+ / 0-)

          And what anamolies are you talking about?  If you're talking about Tuesday's primary, there aren't any anomalies, which was the point of the post I linked to in this one.  Clinton won the same places Kerry won, Obama won the same places Dean won.  Saying there were anomalies doesn't make anomalies appear.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:11:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've heard that the exit polls (0+ / 0-)

            differed from the election results. I would like to believe that fraud was not involved. Is there a place that has the exit poll stats? Have they been compared to the results? I am not an Obama supporter. Clinton would be my 3rd choice, but that is not why I am concerned. As I said, I want the people to pick our next president. You do tremendous work here. I don't want a fight with you. I would love to have my fears be shown to be unfounded. My ego will not be bruised if I am proven wrong in this case. This diary hasn't done that....yet.

            The Bush Administration changed everything.

            by kitebro on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:27:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Weight of Evidence (0+ / 0-)

              There's zero evidence that there's a discrepancy between the towns that counted by hand and the towns that counted with machines.  More towns in the regions where Clinton did well count with machines, and more towns where Obama did well count by hand, but the the handcount towns in the pro-Clinton region, her results were consistent with neighboring towns that counted by machine, and in the places in the Central and Western part of NH that county by machine--such as Concord, Hanover and Keene--Obama ran strong and his numbers were consistent with the hand-counted numbers of the nearby towns.  

              There's nothing amiss here.  If you want to believe there is, I can't stop you, but there's zero evidence of malfeasance, and as explained in the post, NH would be a very difficult place to pull off fraud, much harder than in, say, Ohio when Blackwell was SoS.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Link. Confusion is as 'good' as hacking (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rmwarnick, forgore

    Proprietary software, computers = expensive, unreliable, troublesome, hard for poll workers to keep running smoothly.

    Results are therefore questionable.
    Examples:  paper jams!

    New York Times article.
    Democracy Now interview.
    http://www.democracynow.org/

    Will Your Vote Be Counted in 2008? Electronic Voting Machines and the Privatization of Elections

    With less than a month before Super Tuesday, every vote counts, but will every vote actually be counted? One-by-one, states across the country are finding critical flaws in the accuracy and security of electronic voting machines. We speak with Clive Thompson, the author of a New York Times Magazine cover story titled, "Can You Count on Voting Machines?"

    "The Science of Propaganda" http://www.nypl.org/ and search NYPL website for "Lakoff"

    by LNK on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 07:47:18 AM PST

  •  I'll never trust diebold (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, rmwarnick, forgore

    or any other machine without a paper trail and law enforcement watching the whole process and forensics.  There are a bunch of really smart people that can hack into anything.  Not safe in a fascist movement.

    •  Did You Read This Post? (0+ / 0-)

      You know, all the parts about how there IS a paper trail, that every vote in NH is cast on a paper ballot, and that there is NO touchscreen voting in NH?

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:23:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why read when you can pretend it says anything (0+ / 0-)

        I'm pretending that its a note from
        Jessica Alba complementing my pecs.

        Hand me down my walking cane, hand me down my hat...

        by Cheez Whiz on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Optical Scan paper ballots are not hand counted!! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rmwarnick, forgore

        The misconception many people seem to have is that because there is a "paper trail," the votes are ever inspected, looked at or hand counted.  In my Florida county with Diebold Optical Scan, during the recount in 2000, not one paper ballot was ever counted or looked out.  They simply readded all the totals from each precinct.  That is why this whole "paper trail" idea is so misleading.  You have to hand count the paper ballots to get away from election stealing.  Even an audit is not good enough.  

        The vote that was hacked in the demonstration in Tallahassee was done on Diebold Optical Scan machines.  Did you see the movie?

        •  Whoosh (0+ / 0-)

          OK, if you're not going to read what I wrote, fine, but you might want to hold back from showing that you're commenting on something you either didn't read or couldn't understand, because if you feel the need to inform me that not all the ballots were counted by hand, or that the Diebold machines have problems, you clearly didn't read and understand what I wrote.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:14:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rmwarnick, forgore

            The recounts in Ohio and Florida were flawed, to put it charitably, and certainly neither demonstrated that the elections were fair and accurate.  I read your post.  I  don't agree with your analysis.    

          •  paper trail audits in NH (0+ / 0-)

            You seem to have the best info on NH's process.  I've been looking but haven't yet found find that info, and thought you might know where to find it.

            Please don't ban or TR me!  I know you must be exhausted and on your last nerve with the onslaught.  I was hoping that audit info would help kill off the conspiracy theories.  

            Thanks in advance, and thanks for the hard work and energy that you are putting into what must be a grueling task in educating the readership, especially with the endless repetition.  Even though we don't agree on everything, I respect your dedication and commitment to the cause.

            •  I Don't Think There Are Standard Audits (0+ / 0-)

              There should be, but I don't know if they have them.  But when they did a select quasi-recount in NH in 2004 of about a dozen wards/towns, the numbers came back close to perfect.  

              I wish there were standard audits; among other things, it would probably help to shut up the people crying wolf.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:09:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  And when they actually looked at the ballots (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rmwarnick

          Gores totals went up.  People would fill in the dot and also write "Gore" and those ballots got discarded as over-votes but when the ballots were examined by hand, the intent was clear.  Thats why the thorough analysis actually proved he did win Florida.  

  •  Optical scanners were hacked in FL in 2000! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rmwarnick

    Anything not on paper ballots, and hand counted, are to be suspect. However, I do agree that this NH vote was legitimate.  I suspect Hillary's crying jag shifted a lot of independents and women to her at the last moment.  

    Frankly, while I do not care for Hillary (I will vote for he it the nominee), it is refreshing to have a potential President who can cry (for whatever motives) vs. a sociopath who consigns millions to their deaths, destroys whole countries, threatens nuclear war, and sleeps like a baby at night.  Fuck that!!!

    You don't negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy. --Ambr. Joe Wilson

    by FightTheFuture on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:11:57 AM PST

    •  minnesota and optical scanners (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eleming, JayDean, forgore

      In Minnesota, we hand-count samples of optical-scan ballots to double-check the scanner.  It can be done.

      The company you keep says a lot about the person you are.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:04:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes.... but is it? Again, paper ballots HAND (0+ / 0-)

        counted with proper observation and openness and reporting results at the local level before it is rolled up and possibly compromised is the only real, trustworthy way.  Exit polls would be very helpful, also although they seem to work everywhere else except for here; at least for the last 8 years! Hmmm....

        Now, even then, things can be compromised, but the effect will be negligible.  that is because as the number of people involved in a criminal act rises, the chance of success diminishes.  That's the beauty of the current theft, electronic methods allows a reduced number of people to be involved per vote stolen.  Couple this with many other techniques and media complicity in dampening real though and analysis and viola, you have a Democracy that would be the envy of the USSR!  As Stalin said, "It matters not who votes, only who counts the votes"!

        Now, as I said, I think NH was a different response, partly Hillary's crying jag, partly a rebalancing of the media hype that was Iowa, and people still very unsure between two main Democratic candidates, Obama and Clinton, paraded ad nauseum before them, with little to actually distinguish the two; while another, Edwards, remains muted in the shadows, his message ignored and overshadowed by "haircuts" and "a big house".

        A very interesting year ahead.

        You don't negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy. --Ambr. Joe Wilson

        by FightTheFuture on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:03:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  just a detection mechanism (0+ / 0-)

          Hand-counting optical ballots is functionally no different from hand-counting other paper ballots.  And a sampling should be enough to detect any machine-based problems.  One nice thing about the Minnesota system is that ballots must ALWAYS be handled with representatives of at least two political parties present.  This makes paper-handling fraud far more difficult.

          I think everyone should work as an election judge at least once, just to learn the system.  And as a Minnesotan, I'm proud of ours.  It works very well.

          Republican speech rules: No words with three syllables or more, except America, president, and terrorists.

          by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is this radom sampling? Is it radom by precinct, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rmwarnick

            or is it known ahead of time which precincts will be counted?  Really, are you that confident in MN system?  I'm not, considering its the State that sent Norm Coleman to the Senate!!!  

            Okay, perhaps a cheap shot, but anything that automates our vote counting, essentially privatizing part of it, is always suspect.  Our vote is so important that there is no need to have it tabulated in hours for speed only.  Hand counted paper ballots, results released at the precinct level, (source of original counting), certified at the higher level, if needed.  Open viewing of counting, or/and internet cams for any voter to observe, if so desired.  

            Anything else just makes an easier lever to subvert it, as we have seen easily, on a major scale, since 1998 with Chuck Hagal's election in Nebraska, then in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006.

            You don't negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy. --Ambr. Joe Wilson

            by FightTheFuture on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:35:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  EVERY precinct (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FightTheFuture

              It's part of the process.  I've been an election judge, I've hand-counted ballots as part of the process.  And if the hand-count (by multiple people, mind you) doesn't match the machine count, the entire precinct gets hand-counted, every vote - by representatives of multiple parties.  It's very, very hard to defraud.  Also, partisan poll-watchers are welcomed to observe the counting process, and do so.  

              We are not Ohio.  We are not Florida.  We are not barbarians.  OUR elections are free and fair.  It's not the technology that matters... it's the checks.  Some automatic tabulation is okay (and demonstrably more accurate than hand-counting - optical scanners were once my profession, albiet not voting machines), but you need to hand-sample to double-check the automated counts, which is what Minnesota does.  The hand-sample validates the automated count, and the multi-party presence validates the hand-count.  It's a fine system.  

              Norm Coleman got elected because Republicans were smart and Democrats were dumb, period.  It wasn't a matter of corruption or cheating.

              Republican speech rules: No words with three syllables or more, except America, president, and terrorists.

              by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The technology also matters, very much. (0+ / 0-)

                I am still astounded by how easily machines with no verifiable methodology were slipped into our election systems, nationwide.  even machines considered safe: punch cards, optical scan, have shown cases of being suspect.  then for the newer machines, there's teh bullshit "paper trail", that is really a placebo.  Unless each voters verifies that "paper trail" that  might be hand counted, then its totally useless.  Even then, recounts often do not occur.

                Also, automated systems, while possibly being more accurate, can also be more easily subverted.  So, the chance that a few votes are miscounted is of little worry to me if it is a choice between hand counting, by  multiple parties which increases accuracy, vs. machines.  

                Oh, I did say Norm Coleman was a cheap shot.  However, if MN is so accurate, then whatever role the parties may have played, its the voters who voted for him, and those who did not vote at all, who were dumb in the end!

                You don't negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy. --Ambr. Joe Wilson

                by FightTheFuture on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 03:37:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Who says the Hillary camp did it? (5+ / 0-)

    So many posts here simply state, "There was no fraud in NH."  Oh really?  Was Florida legitimate?  Was Ohio?  Where have you people been and what have you (not) been reading?
    I haven't read anything here that convincingly explains the discrepancy between the polls and the "votes."
    Perhaps the inclination of many Kossacks to dismiss the possibility of dirty tricks in NH is because they find it hard to believe that Democrats would engage in election fraud, but why would it have to be the Democrats who tinkered with the outcome in NH?
    In light of all their previous shenanigans, I find it hard to believe that the Rovians would NOT fuck with an election.  Do you really think the GOP would just sit back and let democracy run its course?  Right.
    And after the Bush administration sets off their dustup with Iran (any day now) they know that that will make it a lot harder to for many to cast a vote for a woman commander-in-chief.
    And since when is merely questioning the process tantamount to being a conspiracy nut?  Seems somewhat fascistic to me.

    •  What about Rove's reference to Hillary's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lysias, kiss my left behind

      FATAL FLAW?

      He never explained it, but I don't think he was speaking generically, it sounded more like they know "something" about Hillary, and they are holding it like a trump card until the general election.

      Whatever dirty little secret(s) they gathered (from the FISA fiasco, maybe?) they obviously believe Hilolary is the most beatable of the candidates.

      Since we all agree here that the Republican neocons are capable of anything, is it such a stretch of the imagination that they might want to make certain Hillary wins the primary?

      Rove still commands a cadre of fake Dems in NH, the same ones he used to caller-ID those phone banks they flooded with calls, and they are likely Dems in high places by now.

      Is it so illogical to think they might have done this to assure their own Democratic candidate of choice won in the primary?

      Seems like an actual reasonable progression of simple logic, not a fantastic leap at all.

  •  The Clinton campaign wouldn't be involved (6+ / 0-)

    But in any election that the criminal Republican LHS Associates are counting the ballots with their easily hacked machines and convicted felon programmers a sample of their counts should be hand audited.

    It is especially necessary when all the polls and even the exit polls give different results.  And when the hand-counted results differ from the townships counted using their software.

    •  If Republicans did it, they may have acted (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      forgore

      with confidence that Hillary-friendly officials in NH would not question the results.

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:19:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fraud is the explanation with historical support (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kiss my left behind, JayDean, forgore

    Electronic voting just makes it cleaner, quicker, easier and best of all, more reliable, because they can keep on adjusting.

  •  Your logic amazes me - YES, the machines are (6+ / 0-)

    hackable, but they wouldn't because a recount COULD check the results?  My first reaction was to accept the thesis that people are making up poor excuses - and, in fact, my inclination is to accept the NH election results and move on - but after reading this black box study, which represents a lot of effort - much more than waiving off any doubters - I will believe their study and not your rather reckless dismissal of any and all doubters.  

    We Changed The Course! Now we must hold their feet to the fire.

    by hcc in VA on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM PST

    •  Hey, Logic DOES Amaze Some People (0+ / 0-)

      For those who find it scary, they resort back in to the lunacy of Bev Harris and Black Box Voting, who claimed that they had PROOF that Florida was stolen in 2004, and still won't reveal their "proof."  

      Some people also believe the moon landing was staged on a Hollywood sound stage, or that fluoride is sapping our nation's bodily evidence.  Clearly some people will believe whatever they want to believe, evidence be damned.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  First of all, as I said, (0+ / 0-)

        I accept the results and say "move on."  I just didn't quite get where you logic was so overwhelmingly convincing, sorry.  Seems that if one or two conspiracy theories are not proven, you discount ALL of them?  I am NOT a conspiracist, but I do have an open mind.

        We Changed The Course! Now we must hold their feet to the fire.

        by hcc in VA on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:51:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  no, believe the power of simple arithmetic above (0+ / 0-)

      Just look at the calculations above I have done using the very tables that Mr.Clue propagates from Ron Paul supporters. If you can add and divde it is clear that any theory that says diebold machines increased the % of votes over handcount will give Hillary and not Obama more votes. Because in large counties whose vote total dominates the totals, Obama actually got a 5% boost from machines over handcount, while hillary had the same