READER COMMENTS ON

"Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in NH"

(124 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Kristin said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:12 am PT...





Statistics machine vs hand count/ town by town.

Clinton wins over Obama in Diebolt counted towns

loses to Obama in hand counted towns.

2008 New Hampshire State Primary Results - A Closer Look At The Count

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:31 am PT...





We students of logic know that when you begin with a false premise it is utterly assured that you will end with a false conclusion. Guaranteed, whether democrat, republican, protestant, jewish, muslim, hindu, catholic, MSM, or blogger ... When the premise is "Diebold electronic voting machines cannot produce incorrect vote results", then the logical deduction stream will never reach a contrary conclusion. Thus "women's reaction to Clinton's crying", the "white racial animus against Obama", yada, yada, yada, takes the fools downstream downMSMstream fast. And that is exactly what has happened. A false premise has lead to a torrent of false conclusions.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... tep said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:39 am PT...





If I read this right, it seems like Obama (should have)won with even bigger margin over Hillary than the handcounted results would say. Round about the way the pre-polls suggested.

http://www.latimes.com/l...tory?coll=la-home-center It doesnt ask them how they voted though, but whom they think would beat a republican in November. Why not ask straight whom they voted? Or is this a way for them to avoid questioning the legitimacy of the poll?

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:42 am PT...





The only thing transparent about American elections nowadays is that they are controlled by fascists. Democrats and Republican alike, bought out if not originally placed, by greed-driven corporate interests. Genuinely forthright and honest politicians such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are entirely shut out of the debates by the fascist corporate media. Of course the Overwhelmingly Fascist American media will still lie to the public about rigged elections. Has anybody analyzed American media profits as they relate to the Iraq war? Are they war profiteering? NBC?

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:45 am PT...





Dredd, that's why Al Gore invented the internets knowing someday we could all put our heads together and ask questions about this farce.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:52 am PT...





Isn't this enough at this point in time to actually use this as "reasonable doubt" as to the accuracy of these corrupt electronic vote tabulation devices, and furthermore to also group in certain folks in the democratic party (Which we all have suspected) as to their reasons for "not giving a shit" about electronic vote tabulation devices. a.) We know the manufacturers are corrupt. (e.g. physics and electronics)

b.) We knew the republicans were affiliated. (e.g. business deals)

c.) We suspected the democrats as complicit as well. (Many suggestions of blackmail early on, but at this point we know why now, cause they want to abuse the same technology!)

d.) Corporate media (KNOWN FACT: Blackout on the topic of electronic vote tabulation device failures) Current today: Perceived results are converted to final results. So... now what?

Time to uphold the constitution yet? Lemme know when your ready.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... River said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:53 am PT...





Obama learned his politics in South Chicago. He must know vote rigging when he sees it. Is he going to fold up like Kerry did?

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:56 am PT...





The anonymous blogger has the obvious immediate solution:

For all of us who are interested in a recount, there seems to be a real possibility of one. There were 42 candidates on the Dem + Rep ballots and any one of them can request a recount. It seems like Albert Howard, one of those 42, is inclined to do so. If we can contact him and offer to raise the money for recount, he will likely request an official recount. Our chance is now. (Blogger Anonymous, emphasis added). I will entertain argument that it is impossible to have a recount because the paper ballots have not been counted the first time yet ... At least by human beings who can make errors but usually don't in such premises ... The relevant count so far has been done by diebold machines that "can't make errors" but usually do in such premises. Clu Gulager Cul Prit for preznit

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:09 am PT...





Speaking of Cul Prit for preznit, check out this olde english:

"WHEN the prifoner hath thus pleaded not guilty, non culpabilis, or nient culpable; which was formerly ufed to be abbreviated upon the minutes, thus, “non (or nient) cul.” the clerk of the affife, or clerk of the arraigns, on behalf of the crown replies, that the prifoner is guilty, and that he is ready to prove him fo. This is done by two monofvllables in the fame fpirit of abbreviation, “cul. prit.” which fignifies firft that the prifoner is guilty ..." (Blackstone almost BC, emphasis added). Concerning democracy, some have said we have come a long way baby, however, when we are lost that doesn't change things or make a great difference does it?

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... solly said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:09 am PT...





***VOTE FRAUD CONFIRMED IN SUSSEX NH BY BEV HARRIS!!!*** Ron Paul was given 0 votes in Sussex and three people who voted for him there raised their voices. Bev Harris checked up on it and the clerk in that county HAS NOW BEEN FORCED TO ADMIT Ron Paul got 31 votes, not "0". They are claiming human error but Bev Harris isn't buying it. http://www.bbvforums.org...gi?file=/1954/71200.html "UPDATE JAN 9 9am PST: TOWN OF SUTTON CONFIRMS RON PAUL TOTALS WERE 31, NOT ZERO. I just got off the phone with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton. She confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31, and said that they were "left off the tally sheet" and it was human error. This is not an acceptable answer, especially because one of the most common forms of fraud in a hand count system is to alter or omit results on the reporting sheet. Hand count is lovely, transparent. They then fill out another reconciliation sheet, often in front of witnesses, and it looks fine. Then they provide a summary or media sheet with the incorrect results. A Web site here: http://www.wheresthepaper.org has more on fraud techniques with hand counted paper ballots. You'll have to dig for it --- or Google, and the excellent research on this is Theresa Hommel from the state of New York. "

It doesn't look like Obama is going to stand up and be counted, so if people are truly interested in seeing a recount, the only candidate who has the will to make this happen is Ron Paul. BRAD, PLEASE CONTACT THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN, THEY ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR VOICE.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:12 am PT...





Accountability for President!

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Nick said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:55 am PT...





Give me a BREAK! The real problem with politics are people that are so swept up in conspiracy theories that they really appear to have lost all of their mental faculties. Guess what? The walls aren't closing in. They aren't coming for you. Get a grip! Exit polls ARE not scientific. As was shown with the Doug Wilder race in Virginia (you would have heard this if you actually listened on Hardball), the Exit Polls showed that he was winning in a landslide, but the actual count only ended up at 1%. NO one! I mean NO ONE, has asserted that this was a bogus/tampered election. The fact is bigots don't want to have to answer to being bigots. So, they lie. Get over it!

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Phil said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:13 am PT...





Nick, These electronic tabulation devices are fucked up. This is a fact. When the wrong people are put in power they DO come after you. This is a fact. When electronic tabulation devices count votes there can be no public oversight and this is unconstitutional. This is a fact.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:21 am PT...





The new definition of credibility is "the ability to bullshit over and over again without anyone caring". John Zogby has morphed into that place too, concerning Pre-election polling. It now has no close basis in relation to what is actually going to happen, but still they are "credible" he says. Nutcases in the "get over it" crowd confuse Exit Polling with "that credible" form of polling. They can't get over under or around science. I posted this after the '04 election:

Exit Poll Science Exit poll science provides tools that have been used for decades successfully. Accurate predictions are the legacy of these tools. The 2000 and 2004 official election results were at odds with the exit poll predictions. Those doing the polls ... were of the popular mindset "it can't happen here". This mindset is not prepared to entertain any notion of election [fraud or malfunction] as the reason for the massive first time discrepancies. They instead offered the explanation that "republicans were more shy than democrats" and that is why the massive discrepancy. They did not even consider [fraud or malfunction]. A study done by 8 Phd's and one MS pointed this out and that [fraud or malfunction] must not be ruled out (link here). They said: "3. Inaccurate Election Results [fraud or malfunction] [Analysts] did not even consider this hypothesis, and thus made no effort to contradict it. Some ... exit poll data may be construed as affirmative evidence for inaccurate election results. We conclude that the hypothesis that the voters’ intent was not accurately recorded or counted [fraud or malfunction] cannot be ruled out and needs further investigation" (ibid. at page 3, bold and "[fraud or malfunction]" added). Other experts have said: "Flaws in any of these aspects of a voting system, however, can lead to indecisive or incorrect election results" (link here). ... the MSM, who used the data, can't bear to even consider that America could be corrupted in its election processes. A position entirely at odds with common sense and scientific inquiry. (Olde Bradblog post). Hey, its deja vu all over again. The machines are infallible in Amurka, and thus fraud or malfunction cannot, as a matter of FAITH, even be considered. That is the "get over it science" of modern electioneering ... which is actually a psychosis of denial. Last time it brought us preznit blush and the fiasco of sickness ... God only knows what it would bring this time around. No wonder Mac is so happy ... he can stay in Iraq for "a million years". Wow!!!!

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... miscue said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:22 am PT...





And everyone believes everything the media tells you? Get a grip on yourself. The MSM choice of winner was what MSM wanted, not what they got. And with egg all over their faces, they refuse to understand what happened. I'm not arguing the fact about hand counting, voting machines, human error, etc. I'm talking about a lot of people who are being brain washed. WAKE UP, see what is happening.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... tep said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:32 am PT...





Nick, why would NH people be so differnet to those in Iowa? There was no Bradley effect there.

And why is it that in Iowa big towns were more favourable towards Obama than Hillary compared to smaller areas, meanwhile in NH Hillary won in larger towns, which also use provenly unreliable electronic voting machines, and lost in hand counted small areas as the polls predicted?

Guess thats too far down the hole you´d want to look into?

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:36 am PT...





Anyone who believes that Clinton can create a 20% shift in 24 hours with her omnipotent powers of relatedness is the most insane conspiracy theorist I have ever heard of. People who believe the CNN/MSNBC/FOX results of the NH primary are spreading outlandish conspiracy theorists that give safe harbor to the real terrorists. These are the same people that believed Bush won the election in 2000 and then again in 2004. Could you conspiracy theorists please read a book and get your facts straight. You are only disrespecting the victims with your vile hate speeches.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Ancient said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:55 am PT...





I agree Ron Paul is the one to ask for a recount. With all the money he's raised, what better use than to see just how real canidates are being screwed by ELECTION FRAUD not voter fraud scotus.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Shannon Williford said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:00 am PT...





Everybody go look at the link in Kristin's #1. If it is creditable, then somebody needs to point it out to the MSM. Let's roll, y'all! shw

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:18 am PT...





Dredd's comment #2 nails it! But with all the video's of BlackBoxVoting.org easily hacking into e-vote machines, why isn't one of the questions, "Maybe the actual count is off?". There's plenty of evidence the e-vote machines are not secure. The CMSM is, like Dredd says, beginning all analysis with the assumption that the count is correct!

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:23 am PT...





Nick comment #12 says:

"Exit polls ARE not scientific...Get over it!" What about the videos of BBV easily hacking into e-vote machines? THE COUNT isn't scientific! Should we "get over" that the machines are not secure? Also, we've been accused of saying this only about Repubicans. Here we are, saying it about a Democrat, and where are all the people who say we only say this about Republicans?

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:44 am PT...





The fact that Obama conceded the outcome as early as he did, in light of the results coming out so contrary to the exit polling - is indicative of WHAT? Indicative of a scripted outcome perhaps? Obama and Clinton and McCain are managed by the same puppeteer on behalf of the NWO. David Rockefeller. Why did McCain gain so much traction in the media and suddenly and decisively crush the field just days later? David Rockefeller. The Grand Master Puppeteer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGiRkJqZU9s

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Cyteria said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:54 am PT...





Are you suggesting that Shrill Hill, the Wicked Witch of the Left, the Carl Rove of the Democratic Party, would try to rig an election? Get real!

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Raincity Calling said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:00 am PT...





The controversy echos a similar controversy in 1988, Bush vs Dole. See this post for excerpt from book, "VoteScam: The Stealing of America" which covers the 1988 "upset." http://www.washblog.com/...ory/2008/1/10/25424/0299

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Cindy said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:08 am PT...





Good Morning All, I have a very sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach that we are in worse trouble than we can imagine, or had predicted. I am not some wild eyed screw ball, what I am is an engineer (BSEE) from a major university, who has been working in and around computers since 1985 - As soon as I heard that physical, verified and back-checked no-audit trail e-tabulation was occurring again, I KNEW we were in serious trouble, and then when the significant delta showed up - that was the ball game. I must tell you this, and its only me, we must all decide what action we will take - IF Obama (whom I have been solidly for) does not challenge this (and I'm NOT simply talking sour grapes) and remains moot, as Kerry did - I'm done - I'm moving over to Paul. I don't like his ideas on right to choose - but given what we see coming down the road - we have to make our choices. Finally,I doubt you will find anyone A-N-Y-O-N-E who works in IS, particularly in IS Information Assurance - that believes in the infallibility of computational devices. As I tell people, if you want a secure computer, unplug it, put it into a 55 gallon drum, fill the drum with concrete, and put it into an old salt mine shaft, where the salt will eventually turn the whole mess, into corroded powder. IF this country buys this bag of rats - then "we" deserve our fate. You need look no further than the identity theft pandemic that is now occurring, to see how easy it is to subvert IS's!!!!

MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY!!!

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:15 am PT...





Raincity: Great article - must reading by all! Best quote from it: "An election that either is not or cannot be verified is theater. It is not a democratic election." "Theater" best describes the entire phony political process, which now dominates the airwaves 24/7, 265, regardless of election cycles. Divide and conquer, baby! Just as David Rockefeller. Politics is not the solution. Politics is the problem. Bring on the "No Party" system. The Party is OVER!

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:23 am PT...





Obviously the puppeteers have decided that the Clinton/Obama ticket, OR the Obama/Clinton ticket is preordained on the Democratic side, and I guarantee that McCain/Lieberman will be the Republican ticket. McCain/Lieberman is Likud's choice, and thus it shall be President McCain and Vice President Lieberman - no matter who votes, or how they vote. Take it to the bank.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:29 am PT...





Vote Machine Fraud: http://www.linkcrusader.com/vote_machines.htm

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Ryan Lavelle said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:30 am PT...





There is another possibility - that the mainstream news orgs faked the exit polls. This is not as outlandish as it sounds since they all have a very clear anti-Hillary bias and are afraid of another Clinton presidency and what that will mean for their corporate masters. What we Democrats all need to be very careful of is the 3rd party ticket - BLOOMBERG - The WALL ST candidate, who may come into the race in May after some major "scandal" or other that discredits the two mainstream parties. This is a typical tactic for bringing a dictator to power. You have all been warned!

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... John Dowd said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:31 am PT...





Warning: Serious irony alert: Here's the start of the email message I got yesterday from clueless MoveOn.org. You may think I'm making this up. I wish I were. We should all tell MoveOn how stupid and ignorant they are. Brad, can you perhaps TRY to clue them in? Dear John, Imagine if yesterday's New Hampshire primary had been decided by insecure electronic voting machines instead of paper ballots. With polls saying one thing and ballots another—and a thin margin deciding the winner—the results could have been forever in doubt. It goes on from there asking me to sign some kind of electronic voting petition, blah blah, and make a contribution to them to help them continue their important work, even as they drop the ball that's about to smack them on their sill heads. Cannot believe it, just cannot. I'm pulling out handfulls of hair right now. In the love of truth, John Dowd

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... Mary T. Ficalora said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:31 am PT...





Go to http://grannywarrior.chi...blic/id/7824c4207bb59b7c

donate to have a hand recount done on the votes cast in New Hampshire!

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... BigBear said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:34 am PT...





Randomly pull four counties and hand count the ballots. If they are mark sense optical ballots a hand count is easy. I worked for ES&S back in the early 90's and let me tell you everyone should be demanding a recount on any electronic voting system.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Karen Young said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:35 am PT...





When David Dinkum ran against Rudy Gulani,

they said he would win by 12 points in the polls.

He won by 2 points. There was no Deibold then.

The Pew Research labeled it right....there

is little polling of poor, less educated voters who feel great competition with blacks. In Iowa

Obama was not the front runner and wasn't much of risk....by New Hampshire he was becoming more of a risk. In Iowa you vote in the open, in

New Hampshire, you vote in the privacy of a booth. Racism still exists and so does sexism,

those things don't usually show up in the polls.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:48 am PT...





A Plunger Flashback: YOUR STOLEN NATION… EXIT POLLS DON’T LIE – GET EDUCATED – ALERT THE MEDIA! Rove has telegraphed his punch, and now it’s up to all of us to call BULLSHIT on his BULLSHIT. Speaking on a recent NPR interview, Rove stated that he actually sees upward of 36 different polls – many of which predict a GOP victory in the coming elections. He’s simply lying. He’s lying to create a mindset of doubt – in order to better enable the theft of the election through means other than the ballot box. The GOP has effectively hijacked America. Bush did not win the election in 2004. Exit polls don’t lie…but Rove does. Revisit the exit polling data from 2004 and share it with others: http://en.wikipedia.org/...ontroversy%2C_exit_polls Call it to the attention of the media. Let the media know that we WILL NOT TOLERATE another stolen election, nor will we tolerate their complicity in disparaging the validity of Exit Polling as a valuable check against election fraud. CNN’s Jeff Greenfield was interviewed about the forthcoming elections, and his parting comment at the end of the segment was what would have appeared to be an off-handed disparaging remark about the reliability of Exit Polls. Greenfield was/is shilling for Rove – and this was a TALKING POINT ordered up by Rove. “Exit Polling” had not been part of the prior discussion, but was something that he slipped in at the end of the segment – as if ordered to do so. DON’T LET THEM SWIFTBOAT “EXIT POLLING” Learn about the company Rove has hired to conduct and report fraudulent exit poll results – which will stand in sharp contrast to all other exit polls: The GOP has employed a firm called Penn, Schoen, & Berland to skew exit poll results in the past in order to achieve their own political ends. They are on Rove’s payroll: http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=70727 Electoral Fraud Is the First Step on the Road to Tyranny http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=70456 November 2, 2004: Overcoming a six point exit-poll advantage by Senator John Kerry, George Bush is re-elected President. Several statisticians have calculated the probability of this anomaly as one in a million --- in effect, impossible.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:49 am PT...





Excuse me, but this is crap. Hand counted votes are prone to more mistakes than a voting machine; it's human vs. machine. Second, for ALL of 2007, Hillary was leading in New Hampshire. Let me repeat that...she was leading in ALL of 2007. So you people are going to tell me that one win from Obama in a caucus is going to erase a full year of Hillary's support? Further, exit poll data is virtually SCREAMED at as the data is collected....not 3 days later...where was this exit polling on that night, or 2 nights ago, Chrissy -I hate the Clintons- Matthews? If they have statistics as far as what demographics voted for whom immediately available, where was the exit poll data? Sorry...but crying like babies and calling foul is suspect, and now I'm starting to question people who don't get the outcome they wished for and then whine.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... John Dowd said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:50 am PT...





Pertaining to the issue I mentioned above in comment #30, I just sent MoveOn the following email: Dear Noah and friends, I have to be blunt. You have seriously dropped the ball on this one, and your email makes your organization look extremely ignorant and gullible. There is serious evidence of election fraud in the New Hampshire results. Please to go www.bradblog.com and have an open minded look. In particular, get to the part where people have looked, and found that the counties where votes were tallied by hand match the exit polls, with Obama winning, whereas in the machine-counted counties, there is a huge discrepancy toward Clinton. This begs to be investigated in these machine-counted counties, where the counting is done via hackable, insecure Diebold optical scanners. These machines can be preloaded with hacked memory cards having negative totals for some candidates and positive totals for other candidates, and it is not detectable unless the votes from that machine are counted by hand to see if the results match. This is generally not done, because people are generally ignorant of the possibility. Your org. should be demanding recounts and investigations and putting up money to do recounting in NH, as a first order of business. Please, I beg you, it's just our democracy that is at stake! For the love of truth, John P.S. I'm going to also post this email over at BradBlog.com so the people there can see it, and perhaps also add their voices to help clue you in.

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... Neil_ski said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:52 am PT...





Glad to see that this whole e-voting thing has been taken care of since the 2004 presidential election. Oh wait, it hasn't. Yay for representative democracy taking the initiative.

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:56 am PT...





This entire sham is specifically designed to abolish the practice of Exit Polling in order to enable election theft: Does this old posting raise any concerns? THE SWIFTBOATING OF “EXIT POLLING” Last night it started. CNN’s Jeff Greenfield was interviewed about the forthcoming elections, and his parting comment at the end of the segment was what would have appeared to be an off-handed disparaging remark about the reliability of Exit Polls. Greenfield was/is shilling for Rove – and this was a TALKING POINT ordered up by Rove. “Exit Polling” had not been part of the prior discussion, but was something that he slipped in at the end of the segment – as if ordered to do so. Rove has been interviewed in recent days proclaiming that HIS polling (which he proclaims nobody else has access to and is superior to all other polling data) portrays the key races to be very close, not nearly the blowouts that the REALITY BASED COMMUNITY is seeing. THIS IS A SET UP. If you are going to STEAL AN ELECTION VIA VOTE RIGGING – you need to lay the ground work – planting doubt in the minds of the electorate through the media shills. Exit polling has been a reliable method by which to approximate the result of elections prior to the final votes being tallied. Exit polling has only been called into question in the last two election cycles – but ONLY because the Exit Polling data were not confirmed by the final “official” vote tally. As has now been proven, it was not the Exit Polling data that was inaccurate or unreliable, it was the reporting of the Official Total” that had been tampered with. It’s time to TAKE THE OFFENSIVE where Exit Polling is concerned and reveal this Swiftboating of “Exit Polling” for what it is – a Rovian sham designed specifically to condition the electorate to disbelieve the exit poll results (which will portray the house and Senate going under Democratic Control), and rather to only believe the “Official” (FALSE) vote count. The Mainstream Media is fully complicit in the Rovian Brainwashing campaign to discredit “Exit Polling” as unscientific hoohah, when in fact it is the smoking gun EVIDENCE of election fraud used throughout the world. Ask International Elections Observers about the value of Exit Polling. THE TRICK THEY ARE USING IS TO GET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO DEMAND THAT EXIT POLLING BE ABOLISHED - AS IF THE EXIT POLLING WERE THE PROBLEM.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:06 am PT...





Nick, you should be condemned to listen to "Don't Worry, Be Happy" for the next four years.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... lysias said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:13 am PT...





You can have democracy without parties to the extent that you have direct democracy. Ancient Athens chose most of its officials (the whole legislature, the courts, all but the highest and most specialized executives) by lot --- like we do for juries. I have long been in favor of adopting this system for the lower houses of our legislatures, including the U.S. House of Representatives. This would improve on our system of checks and balances. Instead of the whole government consisting of elected politicians and persons appointed by them, a body made up of average citizens could veto what the politicians and appointees in the rest of the government did (and the politicians and appointees would serve as a check on the average citizens). A much more radical version of this direct democracy worked for several centuries in Athens.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:15 am PT...





I note that the best argument that Clinton actually won the election and all the preelection polls were wrong is because she led, by polls, in all of 2007. So polls from last year were accurate, but all polls leading up to the election in the last few days were wrong, and MSNBC's unadjusted exit poll was wrong too. Essentially, the poster suggests that old polls were accurate, recent polls aren't. And Hillary won. The rest of the arguments have been, essentially, "You are nuts, shut up." Sorry, but if you believe results of Diebold machines as a matter of faith after the last few elections, you are a fool.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Leilani said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:21 am PT...





I'm sorry but with the diebold machines being as horrible as they are, and has been in controversy...why the hell are we still using them?? There should be a recount for every candidate. Something smells pretty fishy!!

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:28 am PT...





comment 34 links aren't working

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... Ancient said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:32 am PT...





Anybody checking on the ballot storage proceedures and oversight at this point in Nashua, Manchester, Merrimack, Salem, and Rochester counties?

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Ancient said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:41 am PT...





Screw the polls count the ballots!

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... Xavier said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:55 am PT...





I'm sorry but anytime Chris Matthews is cited as a source I cringe. This situation is not a problem with POLLING, its a problem with the MSM REPORTING of the polling. Why is no one bringing up margin of error here? Why is no one bring up the fact that there was a lot of information on these polls regarding soft support? Why are the undecided barely mentioned in the reporting? These polls were accurate within their margin of error and when factor in the undecided voters/soft support. Instead of factoring in these issues, everyone only pays attention to the number next to the candidates name. This is a nonstory and frankly makes me slightly embarrassed that more people haven’t seen it as such … I’m all about fully vetting these blasted voting machines, but please don’t come to conclusions so quickly….and please don’t cite Chris Matthews as a source ever again. The talking heads who are talking about “upsets” are just covering their own irresponsible asses.

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... Jim Oberg said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:58 am PT...





I sent the following letter to the Manchester Union Leader this morning. Perhaps they should hear from more of us. To The Editor, I am writing to raise a question regarding the recent primary election results in your state. Many have expressed shock at the big deviation from polls regarding the Obama/Clinton results. Since a large percentage of votes were counted on Diebold optical scan machines, there is concern being expressed of tampering by the company to affect the outcome. This data below is very worrying, when comparing the proportion of the vote counted by hand (which should be correct) with the machine counted results (where there is no verification). I wonder why there is nothing being reported on this discrepancy (my own calculations show that it could affect about 19,000* votes)? Of course, this is not proof of fraud, but since all the votes were done on paper ballots, including those counted on the machines, it seems like it might warrant a closer examination of the actual ballots, you would think. There could be reasons the votes in the larger cities, which are largely machine counted, could be different from the smaller towns, where most of the hand counted results are taken. However, even in those smaller towns, the machine counted vote and the hand counted vote seems to deviate significantly. It appears that the machines give Clinton a 40%-36% advantage, while the hand count of nearly 55,000 votes gives Obama a 39%-35% advantage. It would be interesting to look at the raw exit polling data to see what indications that gives to this question. Certainly it would make sense to arrange something like this if the Republicans want Clinton as their opposition, and fear Obama. We certainly would have a different scenario today in this race if Obama had gotten 111,500 votes and Clinton had gotten only 99,800 (which would be true if the hand-counted percentages of votes was an accurate representation of the overall voting). Since a relatively small number of votes in the Democratic primary were counted by optical scan machines (228,307), it would seem that calling for a hand count of these paper ballots would go a long way to assuring the public that these privately counted votes can be trusted. Fortunately, New Hampshire has the actual ballots that were counted by the optical scan machines. New Hampshire could do our country a great service in confirming the validity of this very surprising result, and allaying some of the fears of many that such unverified tallying of our precious votes is a threat to our democracy. Thank you. Jim Oberg

Wilsonville, OR *PS: I think whoever put this chart together miscalculated the number of votes affected. Instead of the difference in vote counts being based on the total vote, it should be calculated on the total machine count (228,307), and assume that the hand counted votes (59,157) are correctly counted. Hand-counted votes vs. machine counted votes, NH Primary, Jan 08

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Clive A. said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:00 am PT...





The fix was put in by the Rove cadre of the GOP. They know that they will lose to Obama. They also know that they can beat Hillary. Therein lies the motive. From today's NYT: First, the problem was not a general failure of polling methodology. These same pollsters did a superb job on the Republican side. Senator John McCain won by 5.5 percent. The last wave of polls found a margin of 5.3 percent. So whatever the problem was, it was specific to Mrs. Clinton versus Mr. Obama. Second, the inaccuracies don’t seem related to the subtleties of polling methods. The pollsters who overestimated Mr. Obama’s margin ranged from CBS and Gallup (who have the most rigorous voter screens and sampling designs, and have sterling records in presidential elections) to local and computerized polling operations, whose methods are a good deal less refined. Everyone got it wrong. Third, the mistakes were not the result of a last-minute trend going Mrs. Clinton’s way. Yes, according to exit polls the 17 percent of voters who said they made their decision on Election Day chose Mrs. Clinton a little more than those who decided in the past two or three weeks. But the margin was very small — 39 percent of the late deciders went for Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent went for Mr. Obama. This gap is obviously too narrow to explain the wide lead for Mr. Obama that kept showing up in pre-election polls. Fourth, some have argued that the unusually high turnout may have caused a problem for the pollsters. It’s possible, but unlikely. While participation was higher than in past New Hampshire primaries, the demographic and political profile of the vote remains largely unchanged. In particular, the mix of Democrats to independents — 54 percent to 44 percent respectively — is close to what it was in 2000, the most recent New Hampshire primary without an incumbent in the race.

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... kris said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:07 am PT...





You Americans will regret not putting Ron Paul into the Whitehouse. http://www.infowars.com/

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... anon said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:11 am PT...





Let's not forget that a NH primary is where H.W. Bush mysteriously pulled out of 5th place in polls to take a double digit lead and with that gain the nomination of his party!

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... JEP said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:13 am PT...





Doesn't Rove still command a small cadre of fake Democrats in New Hampshire, the same ones he used to caller-ID those Democratic call centers and jam them? So, considering that Rove knows something the rest of us as yet don't (Hillary's "fatal flaw" was never articulated, but it was referenced by the Rovian, so we might assume it's a trump card held close for the general election)is it any wonder they might make certain Hillary gets the nomination, so they can skewer her with their dirty little secret(s) when the time comes? And what of the billion-dollar campaign projections that a New Hampshire loss for Clinton would have halved? Those media moguls aren't about to give this newest Diebold deception any coverage, Matthews keeps questioning the results, but no one seems to want to make this Diebold connection on the MSM. And who benefits most from a continuation of Clinton's campaign? 1. The Republicans who think they have some dirt that will bury her in the general, or 2. the MSM that wants that easy-money campaign advertising revenue? Hillary may not even know what happened, but no doubt someone on her staff does. Something's rotten in New Hampshire this time around. Once again... PS Xavier, you should have opened your comment above with the words, "Look into my eyes, look deeply into my eyes, your are growing sleepy, your eyelids are growing heavy..." Either you are brainwashed or you want us to be. Just the fact Tweety has taken a position should not make anyone cringe, it ought to make you and everyone else wonder why it took so long for ANYONE in the media to consider that the Republicans, specifically the neocons, are just as desperate to disengage anyone but Hillary from this race, as they are in handing it over to Romney or Giuliani.. It is two steps in one game they have chosen to play.

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... profmarcus said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:21 am PT...





and of course the refusal to even THINK about vote tampering continues by those who really OUGHT to be at least OPEN to the possibility and willing to dig into it at least a LITTLE BIT... And, yes, I DO take it personally

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... capitalsfn said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:31 am PT...





The headline is misleading: 'Was Ahead an Average of 8 Points, Even in Our Own Exit Polls' compared to: What we don't know is why the victory is so much different in fact, then the polling ahead of time, including what we call the Exit Polls were telling us. Obama was ahead in those polls by an average of 8 points, and even our own Exit Polls, taken as people came out of voting, showed him ahead. I read this as saying that the polling before the primary as having Obama +8, and he definitely doesn't say that the MSNBC exit polls showed him +8, just that he was ahead. I'm definitely curious, and I was excited when I saw the headline - maybe we finally had hard exit poll numbers. But we don't.

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... Savantster said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:48 am PT...





Josh, Nick, There's a very simple solution to this, don't you think? Simply grab 10% of the machine counted locations and VERIFY the counts were right... How long would that take? A day? Then we'd know if the machines were accurate or not (but you have to make sure you do a fully random sampling). See, some people went to prison in Ohio for rigging the recount in 2004, they made sure their 'sample' fit the desired results before they declared it was a "random sampling".. By making sure they only picked places that matched, they made sure no one looked at the machine counts as a whole. ... PRISON, guys.. for rigging a recount to ensure no one looked at the machines.. That doesn't bother you? "The real problem with politics are people that are so swept up in conspiracy theories that they really appear to have lost all of their mental faculties." Conspiracies happen, that's a fact. Conspiracy, like liberal or pie, is not a "bad word", your using in a negative context shows your intentions. Theory is a "potential outcome" that is based in fact/evidence, again, not "bad things". So, the only thing seeming to be lacking mental faculties is the assertion that "proved hackable machines in the hands of one private company that's consistently LIED about the vulnerability of the machines could never do anything nefarious". The "machine results" do not match the expected results, but the "hand results" do.. explain that, would ya? ... Oh, right... you'll go off on some distraction because YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION with anything REASONABLE.. If you COULD, we'd not be having this conversation.. lol..

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... Benzene said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:00 am PT...





The morons who run DailyKos have already declared this a non issue, so I guess the progressive Democrats are supposed to ignore this. LOL. Markos is such a fucking idiot sometimes.

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:09 am PT...





I suppose the "New England Phone Jammer" was a figment of our imagination, too! "How to Rig an Election: Convicted Former GOP Operative Details 2002 New Hampshire Phone Jamming Scheme

We speak with former Republican operative Allen Raymond, who served time in federal prison for jamming phone lines of the New Hampshire Democratic Party in 2002 to block a Democratic get-out-the-vote campaign. Raymond has come out with a tell-all book called How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative. In addition to the phone-jamming scheme, Raymond details other Republican tactics such as the use of scripted, phony automated phone messages to try to play on white voters’ racial prejudices in a 2000 New Jersey congressional race. " And the FBI terror alert/shutdown, the moisture with Schmidt/Hackett, etc... http://www.democracynow....ig_an_election_convicted

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:10 am PT...





DailyKOS said "moral victory" when Schmidt stole the election from Hackett...that's when I stopped going there. They wouldn't entertain that the election was tampered with.

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... ELSIEGEL said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:11 am PT...





The big winner (in terms of excess votes in machine counted vs hand counted ballots) is the MITTSTER - Mitt managed to get 16000+ extra votes at the expense of Huckster (4500 votes) McCave (7300 votes)and Rong Paul (4000 votes). On the Dem side Clinton got 14000+ extra vptes out of the machines at the expense of Obama (7500 votes) Richardson (3500 votes) and even Kucinich and "other" had statistically significant undercounts compared with the hand counted ballots. After crunching the numbers, the speculation rises in my mind that the MITTster campaign did a deal with the LHS creeps to insure a win and break Obamas surge, but he sold so poorly in NH that he couldn't even steal it! What a douche.

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... MairaMaderia said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:04 am PT...





This story is a piece of crap, and Chris Matthews a lying turdbucket.

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... Chris said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:04 am PT...





If you think that there was fraud and want a recount, go here:

http://grannywarrior.chipin.com/recount

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:11 am PT...





Shit,....If we want to DE- Enfranchise the youth vote, the media has done their job! No one, but NO- ONE in our vast media including the Prime time Air America hosts like Ed Shultz will touch this w/ a ten-foot pole! As a NH resident, I am ....beyond words,....the last bastion of Independence in this land has been squashed!! Its up to the individual now and the rights we have left to protest and show our discontent...

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:12 am PT...





1)That was a typo; I do not mean to say hand counts are ALWAYS infallible, and Diebold (or any electronic voting machines) are... 2)What I meant to say is that human hand counts are as fallible AS electronic voting machines

I know the history of Diebold; I know one of the russian jewish brothers who founded it was indicted for selling votes for money... 3)What I'm saying still holds true.

I do not trust Chris Matthews. I do not trust Ron Paul. 4)It is misleading people to say that hand counts favored Obama, and Diebold votes favored Hillary... That leads people to believe hand counting and Diebold votes were BOTH performed in each district; that is FALSE. Also, in response to:

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:15 am PT... I note that the best argument that Clinton actually won the election and all the preelection polls were wrong is because she led, by polls, in all of 2007. So polls from last year were accurate, but all polls leading up to the election in the last few days were wrong, and MSNBC's unadjusted exit poll was wrong too. Essentially, the poster suggests that old polls were accurate, recent polls aren't. And Hillary won. The rest of the arguments have been, essentially, "You are nuts, shut up." Sorry, but if you believe results of Diebold machines as a matter of faith after the last few elections, you are a fool. " 1)Why am I holding up past polls and dismissing current ones? a)Eighty polls (80) over an extended period of time, or

b)10 polls over 4-5 days Hmmm...I wonder which one has the best statistical accuracy? Again, where were the exit poll data if we had immediate access to demographic data? Voter fraud occurs...yes. But for a group of people, and a media which demonizes a woman (this time) for LIES and CRAP, and people buy into this sh*t (fake accent, in the south, pandering...turns out to be reading passage from a book) Obama making appearance witha gay homophobe, fading away even as calls were made for him to distance himself...well, whatever. Either way they have the IDENTICAL voting records to show for. Except Obama's controversial votes are MISSING; he doesn't take a stand because he's playing it safe...He has an out on Iraq, because he wasn't able to vote...so of course he verbally disagrees with it because he lives and dies in a DEMOCRAT strong hold. DUH.

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:15 am PT...





Is it true that a grand jury can indict Hillary for stealing the election?

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:16 am PT...





Here is an explanation for why Obama gave up early and for why Clinton-supporters should demand an immediate investigation, and why it won't happen. 1. When the results came in so incredibly skewed from locations using the Diebold machines Obama and his staff KNEW it had been fixed. WHAT TO DO: He couldn't demand a recount without looking bad, it was only a few delegates, and while it would have been nice to damage Clinton early in the race the bad publicity would not have been worth it. The best thing to do in the circumstances was to smile, wave at the crowd and then get out of Dodge. 2. There is demonstrable evidence that there is something very wrong about the voting results. Clinton's own polls showed her losing by 11 points. However, to presume that the Clinton campaign would be so desperate as to fix the New Hampshire primary is ludicrous. It says that she would risk her credibility on one primary. Now imagine we are past the conventions and into the campaign for the general election. Clinton has won the nomination. Someone akin to Carl Rove suddenly leaks a story that Clinton stole the New Hampshire primary when she was about to be blown out of the race way back in January. Thus Clinton's credibility is ruined. Who are you going to vote for, a patriot or a thief? I've explained why Obama can't win by asking for a recount. Clinton can't very well say that the election was stolen for her but she doesn't know who did it. That sounds stupid and unbelievable. However, who is connected to Diebold et al? Who would benefit by a weak Hillary? And maybe there is another primary in the coming months that Diebolds results to Obama. Now both leading Democratic candidates are dirty. And so there is a ticking timebomb waiting to go off this fall and hurt all Democratic candidates for all offices. So it goes.

COMMENT #65 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:18 am PT...





Just so everyone out here knows,...these Diebold machines were ushered into NH late last year to the utter surprise of its residents. The state of NH is split 50/50 among Repubs and Dems,...so who was responsible for bringing these machines in here?? Anybody know??

COMMENT #66 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:20 am PT...





I heard a bunch of candidates are considering a recount. Looks like the first one already sent his letter:

_______________________

Dear sir,

We are going to call for a recount.donations are now being accepted at our website for this cause.

we believe the whole election was rigged.thank you for your support.

Albert Howard

_________________________ I wonder if Hillary already shipped in the extra ballots to fix the recount or if she will do that next week. Do you think her tears will be real when she apologizes to the American people for stealing an election?

COMMENT #67 [Permalink]

... gtash said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:22 am PT...





So, what does Greg Palast say?

COMMENT #68 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:29 am PT...





WOW, please read my last post why I think she wouldn't steal the New Hampshire primary. Just so I'm clear. It appears that the election was fixed for Hillary, but she didn't do it. The Rovians are a lot more clever than you can imagine.

COMMENT #69 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:32 am PT...





WOW it's irresponsible to add fuel to the lies heaped on the clintons. I wonder if Obama has plans to exterminate all gays if he gets the nomination? You know, since he hangs out with a gay homophobe, and never distanced himself from campaigning/pandering to the religious nutters of the south?

COMMENT #70 [Permalink]

... Grizzly Bear Dancer said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:32 am PT...





Savansters post is an excellent rebuttal the "get over it so in so lost and you don't like it" and those trying to discredit people trying to question official result counted in secrecy by a voting machine company than uses riggable electronic voting machines. People who aren't herded in to accept these resulted parroted by the 1%er corporate mass media are nuts again but as 1 of Big Dan's posts begged, this time it's in a Democratic party victory as opposed to the bush/cheney theft. Plunger, you can really come up with some excellent sourced material at times to support some of your ideas such as the David Rockefeller - Dick Cheney - Carl Rove connection that needs to be looked into more closely. To bad brad doesn't have a million dollar budget to pursue an investigation such as this, that could expose the exact way America is run these days. In good time. To the blogger who said they would switch from Obama to Paul if he didn't come forward, i would urge you to check out candidate Dennis Kusinich. He's not into taking the right of choice away from a woman and giving it to a backward state government and has a great plan to fight climate change caused by human pollution and the greenhouse effect. Unfortunatelly Dr. Ron Paul dangerously takes the position that this is not true. If you go to the Kusinich website, you can compare a candidates views to his as well as their voting record. He is the American people's best candidate and blows away all other Dems.

COMMENT #71 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:36 am PT...





COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Dredd said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:09 am PT... Speaking of Cul Prit for preznit, check out this olde english: "WHEN the prifoner hath thus pleaded not guilty, non culpabilis, or nient culpable; which was formerly ufed to be abbreviated upon the minutes, thus, “non (or nient) cul.” the clerk of the affife, or clerk of the arraigns, on behalf of the crown replies, that the prifoner is guilty, and that he is ready to prove him fo. This is done by two monofvllables in the fame fpirit of abbreviation, “cul. prit.” which fignifies firft that the prifoner is guilty ..." (Blackstone almost BC, emphasis added). Concerning democracy, some have said we have come a long way baby, however, when we are lost that doesn't change things or make a great difference does it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... solly said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:09 am PT... ***VOTE FRAUD CONFIRMED IN SUSSEX NH BY BEV HARRIS!!!*** Ron Paul was given 0 votes in Sussex and three people who voted for him there raised their voices. Bev Harris checked up on it and the clerk in that county HAS NOW BEEN FORCED TO ADMIT Ron Paul got 31 votes, not "0". They are claiming human error but Bev Harris isn't buying it. http://www.bbvforums.org...gi?file=/1954/71200.html "UPDATE JAN 9 9am PST: TOWN OF SUTTON CONFIRMS RON PAUL TOTALS WERE 31, NOT ZERO. I just got off the phone with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton. She confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31, and said that they were "left off the tally sheet" and it was human error. This is not an acceptable answer, especially because one of the most common forms of fraud in a hand count system is to alter or omit results on the reporting sheet. Hand count is lovely, transparent. They then fill out another reconciliation sheet, often in front of witnesses, and it looks fine. Then they provide a summary or media sheet with the incorrect results. A Web site here: http://www.wheresthepaper.org has more on fraud techniques with hand counted paper ballots. You'll have to dig for it --- or Google, and the excellent research on this is Theresa Hommel from the state of New York. " It doesn't look like Obama is going to stand up and be counted, so if people are truly interested in seeing a recount, the only candidate who has the will to make this happen is Ron Paul. BRAD, PLEASE CONTACT THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN, THEY ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR VOICE. Wait, so reverse logic says Hillary could have gotten MORE votes than what were counted because people could have left vote tallies off the record for her? Hah..whatever. Even if a vote recount show she still won, you people still won't be happy.

COMMENT #72 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:36 am PT...





@Josh that is actually a good question. I mean Rockefeller definitely wants to do that and his wife works for Rockefeller so who knows. But I do not like to speculate on outlandish conspiracy theories so only time will tell. But what do you think? When she admits her crimes do you think her tears will be real or fake like the coffee shop ones?

COMMENT #73 [Permalink]

... Bob In Pacifica said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:38 am PT...





This is how it will probably be played: First, there will be some rumbling of new evidence of fraud. Then there will be confirmatory evidence of similar frauds throughout New Hampshire. Then there will be some kind information indicating a relationship between Clinton's campaign, or Clinton personally, to the voting machine company. Maybe some kind of payment from the Clinton campaign to some parallel company, or to maybe a polling service owned by the same guy, which suggests her campaign paid off the Diebold machines' owner. Or maybe there will be a picture of her standing next to the Diebold machines' owner, a la the picture of Rosalyn Carter with John Wayne Gacy. This is the way these things work.

COMMENT #74 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:39 am PT...





Its hilarious how the "tear" and "sympathy" theories trump the fact that 80% of the NH vote is secretly kept by a Diebold subcontractor. I live in NH and know NH people. The thought that thousands of pissed off women suddenly went to the polls and lied to the exit pollers because Hillary showed a smidge of emotion is in the realm of Ditto-Head logic,....in other words, pure fantasy. All this, but actually counting the votes is somehow a tin-foil hat conspiracy?

COMMENT #75 [Permalink]

... RandyR said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:39 am PT...





If there was a fraud, the rational is interesting. The vendor of the voting services is a notorious winger who would see little value in diddling the election for McCain who was likely to win anyway. But in what appears to be an obvious fraud how could this entity push votes to do the most damage to the Democrats. It would seem that to do damage the reputation of the strongest candidate, Senator Clinton could be possible. An accusation of Clinton fraud would be more damaging than any loss could cause. If fraud is shown in this, and after the perp is waterboarded, it will be shown that there is an effort to hurt the Clinton campaign. The campaign should immediately call a press conference and deny the victory until it is shown that it was earned honestly. A Clinton sponsored recount would be much less expensive than an accusation of vote count fraud.

COMMENT #76 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:40 am PT...





Wow, she didn't shed real tears...or are you jsut going on lies and rhetoric? If the media, and people like yourselves are not biased against Hillary HUGELY, then answer one question: Why hasn't anything been written about Romney's crying 3 times on the campaign trail, very recently as what, yesterday, today? Seriously...I'm TIRED of crap and lies. POliticans are what they are; anyone who goes above and beyond to single out one candidate for crap that all of them pull, well, you lost your credibility, period.

COMMENT #77 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:41 am PT...





Hmm, there seems to be 2 "Josh's" on here.

COMMENT #78 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:43 am PT...





Let me guess though...one is actually Hillary defending herself, while she's killing little babies and serving them to Murdoch, while he's watching FAUX news...while her campaign manager is dreaming up ways to take out Obama's wife, because she wore the same colour the night they attended that dinner in D.C., while Chelsea was mugging the homeless.

COMMENT #79 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:46 am PT...





@bob yeah you make some interesting points but you fail to understand that Rove/Bush/Clinton/Cheney/Pelosi are all in the same political party. The Elite political party. What we are watching is a play and we need to be very proactive about tearing down the curtains so that we can reveal the wizards. They really screwed up in NH. There are already over many cases of certified fraud (Suttan) and the executives are convicted drug smugglers. It was such a dumb move, guess they are a bit upset about not being able to do that Gulf of Tonkin Iran false flag. Of course they are going to do South Carolina as well, and it will be cool to see all of the insiders blow the whisle on it. This house of cards sham (bush/clinton/bush/clinton) is getting a bit old. I also do not think the Bilderberg Bloomberg strategy will work either. But one thing is for sure: Election fraud is now the default and it is now on the burden of the fake winners to prove they have won. And this is where Hillary's true authenticity gets revealed: An army of trolls defending a pretty nasty person with the most nonsensical excuses it boggles the mind. Just like Chris Matthews attempted to do yesterday.

COMMENT #80 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:48 am PT...





COMMENT #74 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:39 am PT... Its hilarious how the "tear" and "sympathy" theories trump the fact that 80% of the NH vote is secretly kept by a Diebold subcontractor. I live in NH and know NH people. The thought that thousands of pissed off women suddenly went to the polls and lied to the exit pollers because Hillary showed a smidge of emotion is in the realm of Ditto-Head logic,....in other words, pure fantasy. All this, but actually counting the votes is somehow a tin-foil hat conspiracy?" How's this for a theory: 80 polls over 7 months show Hillary winning NH; 10 polls over 4-5 days(plus a few that showed her even with Obama) showed Obama winning...so Voters actually went with their original choice...maybe because prejudice won out? The only thing *not* 100% fact in my statement, is the REASON why people voted for Hils....But a strong track record over a long period of time vs. a fraction of time and a few polls...well it doesnt' take a scientist to figure out which one is most accurate.

COMMENT #81 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:51 am PT...





RandyR,....thats brilliant, Clinton demanding a re-count. If only honesty went that far. Its all just too tempting for these grubby sausage fingered Rovian Repubs to keep their fingers from tweaking the all-too-easy Diebold hackable software,.....if you were a swine,..could you resist?

COMMENT #82 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:53 am PT...





Outlandish conspiracy theories? You mean like the one about the guys who never flew before hitting three targets by air with military precision, or the one about the building that was not hit by any plane freefalling into its own footprint on voice command, or the one about DOD Anthrax targeting Mainstream Media personalities and Democratic Leadership, that was subsequently deemed a "cold case," or the one about fake WMD that enabled us to lie our way into the control of the world's second largest oil supply, in order to drive the price UP? What could be more outrageous than the existing and provable Conspiracy REALITIES that become more obvious by the day? As for my prediction about President McCain and Vice President Lieberman, the Likud Party shoe-ins... It couldn't be more obvious. Nobody is more interested in our FOREVER OCCUPATION of Iraq than Israel. NOBODY: http://thinkprogress.org...man-mccain-surge-worked/ And nobody controls the outcome of the (S)elections more than AIPAC. Looking for culprits at the top of the voter fraud food chain? Start with Rockefeller and AIPAC. A white woman and a black man were hand picked to lose to the Likuds.

COMMENT #83 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:56 am PT...





"Election fraud is now the default and it is now on the burden of the fake winners to prove they have won. And this is where Hillary's true authenticity gets revealed: An army of trolls defending a pretty nasty person with the most nonsensical excuses it boggles the mind. Just like Chris Matthews attempted to do yesterday. " I am a DEMOCRAT, I VOTE, and I am an AMERICAN. Hillary CLinton is my candidate, but I'm voting for any DEM who gets the nomination, how freakin dare you call me a "troll" simply because you disagree with my choice. You didn't address logic, answer the damn question, you who are so sure of Hillary's base horrible character: 80 polls over 7 months show Hillary winning NH; 10 polls over 4-5 days(plus a few that showed her even with Obama) showed Obama winning...so Voters actually went with their original choice...maybe because prejudice won out? The only thing *not* 100% fact in my statement, is the REASON why people voted for Hils....But a strong track record over a long period of time vs. a fraction of time and a few polls...well it doesnt' take a scientist to figure out which one is most accurate. Is it illogical to think that after 7 months of Hillary being way up in NH, that over 4 days her lead would evaporate?

COMMENT #84 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:00 pm PT...





What "exit polling" source did Chris use? not this one obviously, and it supports that 41% had decided to vote for Hillary WAY before the voting day: http://www.latimes.com/l...tory?coll=la-home-center Whatever "wow"

COMMENT #85 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:02 pm PT...





Hey more certified fraud, check it out, the mysterious 500% rise in the "other" votes. Wow, that is amazing. Couldn't Hillary do a better job of commiting felonies. I mean wtf, it is like she got one too many plastic surgeries. From another site... Looking back at the 2004 primaries may give a good idea of how many "other" votes we should see during such an election. In 2004, Bush was the incumbent so the Republican results aren't really valid as most Republicans weren't willing to "compete" with their own party. The Democrats however give us a better picture of what is "normal" perhaps in an open primary. The data came from: http://www.boston.com/ne...ry_dem_town-by-town.html We can see the Dems cast a total of 255,277 votes with a total of 1268 "other" votes. If we carry that out to the current overall total in 2008 of 287,580 votes we would expect to see appx. 1428 "other" votes in NH. However, we see 4,627! This is a 324% increase of the expected total...! Now, let's look at Republicans...using the reference point above we should expect to see 1187 "other" votes...but we see an amazing 5733! This is an increase over the expected amount by a ridiculous 483%! As a double check to this we can go back and look at the 2000 Republican NH primary, another case where there was no incumbent. Based on those numbers (236,802 votes with 2001 "other") we would expect to see 2019 votes on the Republican side or a difference of a still remarkable 284%! In other words, SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG HERE.

COMMENT #86 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:02 pm PT...





Feel free to pile-on to this guy's attack on Brad and this blog: {Ed Note: FIXED LINK --99} Bury him in facts and links. They hate facts.

COMMENT #87 [Permalink]

... drewmpls said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:05 pm PT...





I searched the NH exit polls on a google. The articles that turned up ask a bunch of questions but NOT who did the people actually vote for. See NYT article at top of google search. Does anyone have a link to the breakdown of the percentages of people voting for each candidate from the exit polls. Can we get that info? Why is this not published in MSM? hmmmmm.

COMMENT #88 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:07 pm PT...





hey Josh, you are a Hillary supporter? Could you do me a big favor and let me know which one of these items are fake? Thanks you're a peach

COMMENT #89 [Permalink]

... Josh said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:08 pm PT...





From Pollster.com: 1) An exit poll is just a survey. Like other surveys, it is subject to random sampling error and, as those who follow exit polls now understand, occasional problems with non-response bias. In New Hampshire (in 1992) and Arizona (in 1996)* primary election exit polls overstated support for Patrick Buchanan, probably because his more enthusiastic supporters were more willing to be interviewed (and for those tempted to hit he comment button, yes, I know that some believe those past errors suggest massive vote fraud --- I have written about that subject at great length). 2) The networks rarely "call" an election on exit poll results alone. The decision desk analysts require a very high degree of statistical confidence (at least 99.5%) before they will consider calling a winner (the ordinary "margin of error" on pre-election polls typically uses a 95% confidence level). They will also wait for actual results if the exit poll is very different from pre-election poll trends. So a single-digit margin on an exit poll is almost never sufficient to say that a particular candidate will win. 3) Watch out for "The Prior." At least two networks are likely to post exit poll tabulations shortly after the polls close that will update as the election night wears on (try these links for MSNBC and CNN). Those data are weighted to whatever estimate of the outcome the analysts have greatest confidence in at any moment. By the end of the night, the tabulations will be weighted to the official count. Typically, the exit poll tabulations are weighted to something called the "Composite Estimate," a combination of the exit poll data alone and a "Prior Estimate" that is based largely on pre-election poll results. So if you look to extrapolate from the initial tabulations posted on MSNBC or CNN (as we did here on Election Night 2006), just keep in mind that in the estimate of each candidate's standing in the initial reports will likely mix exit poll and the pre-election poll estimates (not unlike the kind we report here).

COMMENT #90 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:25 pm PT...





Drewmpls,...

The actual exit polls are unavailable. After the election results, the exit polls are "adjusted" to match the election results. Perhaps some stalwart citizen will divulge the real exit polls before they were altered. WHY IS COUNTING REAL VOTES SOOOOO HARD? Stop the ironic crying and whining, and lets stop this sham of Diebold secret voting!

COMMENT #91 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:29 pm PT...





the truth as simple and lies are complicated and convaluted.....

COMMENT #92 [Permalink]

... Rene H said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:29 pm PT...





When K. R. and G. W. can predict the nominee something could very well be fixed.

COMMENT #93 [Permalink]

... karen said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:33 pm PT...





the difference between exit polls and actual results in hand count and electronic machine precincts look vary familiar, check out stat analysis of 2004 election, below are parts of a reader review on Amazon, of the book Was The 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count. Check out the stats quoted in the second bullet point, look familiar???: ...... Discrepancies between poll exit interviews and official vote counts are far beyond the limits of statistical probability in many places. * Exit poles closely tracked vote counts in precincts that used paper ballots in the 2000 and 2004 elections. * Exit poles diverged by 6-7% from certified vote counts on electronic voting machines. ... * In 2000, 2002 and 2004, virtually all large discrepancies favor Republicans, which coincidence has odds of occurrence of one in millions. For the past 40 years, poll exit interviews have proven highly reliable checks on integrity of elections. Exit polling methods have been refined to account for numerous secondary distortions in accuracy, such as different response rates to exit poles by various demographic and political groups.

COMMENT #94 [Permalink]

... John said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:33 pm PT...





COMMENT #75 ... RandyR Randy = brilliant. The wisest and noblest thing that Hillary could do for herself and the Democrats would be to demand a recount. It vindicate her character to all. And it might pull back a curtain and shed light on some other chicanery. Really don't want to think of the corollary ... if she doesn't demand a recount to clear the air.

COMMENT #95 [Permalink]

... Orangutan. said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:44 pm PT...





Raise hell and spread this news to all your sites.. And do the traditional actions as well. Sign on with these organizations and their petitions... http://www.getitstraightby2008.org

http://pol.moveon.org/paper2008 Push the hell out of this story. Thanks.

COMMENT #96 [Permalink]

... Cindy said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:52 pm PT...





Not sure if I can take much more - the last eight years of pure unadulterated destruction of the country has left me drained and sullied. Now we have de je vous all over again circa 2004. I'm just tired of swimming in a cess-pool. I feel like I'm living in some old Twilight Zone episode. Where is Rod Serling to moderate and let us know that its only an old television program????? And to Bear, it took me 200nanoseconds to come to my senses - re: Paul - I'm swinging to Kucinich, unless Alfred E. Neumann runs. Dennis is being shut out, but at least (I think/hope) he's honest. Again, I reiterate - ANYONE who trusts a computer, or the code that runs it, is NOT in IS, and they are naive sheep ready to be shorn.

We who make our living with them, particularly IS information security, know better. Machines are beyond dumb they only know things 0 and 1. So do we place our trust in an ignorant box thatonly knows two states??? Ugh. Ptuuuiiee

COMMENT #97 [Permalink]

... plunger said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:52 pm PT...





ooops... That was intended to be this link: http://www.thelibertypap...sers-allege-voter-fraud/

COMMENT #98 [Permalink]

... elliott said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:57 pm PT...





its a Don Quixote moment,...tilting at Diebolds..(except we aren't crazy)

COMMENT #99 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:58 pm PT...





@plunger that was an unbelievable piece of journalistic integrity. Amazing all of the facts and figures. Check out this thorough in depth study: 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. These guys continue to show how deep the fraud is. They get apologists to attack whoever promotes democratic integrity. Clinton and the media, better than Hitler and Gobbles. I can't wat for the night of the long knives. Since over 60% of America hates her guts, I am not sure she will be able to pull it off.

COMMENT #100 [Permalink]

... SocraticGadfly said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:14 pm PT...





Hey, Tin Foil Hatters, Zogby made his comments before the "hacked voting machines" conspiracy started getting a mention. As for Matthews jumping on the bandwagon, well, duh, of course. It's CYA time for the tattered bits of his reputation. Might voting machines have wrongly recorded votes? I have no doubt of that, and yes, that's a concern. That's why paper trails are the minimum, or, if Americans took voting as seriously as Western Europe, they'd pony up the money to do paper ballots, period. That said, there's a big diff between inaccurate and hacked voting machines.

COMMENT #101 [Permalink]

... SocraticGadfly said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:17 pm PT...





Oh, one other point. A statistical correlation does NOT imply a causal correlation. Please take a class in logic, or visit The Skeptic's Dictionary, www.skepdic.com.

COMMENT #102 [Permalink]

... Savantster said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:37 pm PT...





"That leads people to believe hand counting and Diebold votes were BOTH performed in each district; that is FALSE." The problem with that statement is you came to a conclusion that makes no sense. It's CLEARLY noted for anyone reading THIS article, or the SITES WITH THE STATS that "each district" was "either" hand OR machine counted. ... So, we have "areas that were hand counted", or "hand counted ballots" nearly MATCHED the "expected results", while the MACHINE COUNTED areas do NOT. That SHOULD cause one to at LEAST pause.. But, since your horse won and you think this is about your horse, you REFUSE to use REASON and look at this objectively. You DO realize that Billary has MORE delegates than Obama, right? Even if she LOST NH? Even if she didn't GO to NH? She's near 70 over him because of the games of "favorites" the PARTY plays.. This is about a LOT more than 9 stupid delegates.

COMMENT #103 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:39 pm PT...





@socratic Thanks for clearing that up. What a relief! BTW are you contracted by Rendon, Lincoln, Omnicom, or IGI? In any case, did Zogby explain the 7% difference in computer v. hand counting? Oh also, why do you conspiracy theorists think that hand counting is so evil? I mean if you were desiring a true election wouldn't you prefer that people actually get to vote? Oh and why have the totals changed after they were certified (seems a bit odd huh?)? What is Hillary's obsession with being a coward? Why doesn't she actually enter an election for once? Well it does not matter the recount has already been initiated, now instead of dealing with the over 20 instances of fraud and corruption we can isolate Hillary's manipulation of the new ballots. You know the ones she already ordered for the recount. Lastly, why does Hillary hate our freedoms so much?

COMMENT #104 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:39 pm PT...





Take a look at this video, and then tell me the count being off is "off the table" of consideration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

COMMENT #105 [Permalink]

... Savantster said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:41 pm PT...





"That said, there's a big diff between inaccurate and hacked voting machines." Yes, very HUGE difference... for intent and criminality.. but NO DIFFERENCE if we don't know what the will of the PEOPLE is... right? Wrong, inaccurate, hacked.. matters not, the EXIT POLLING, used around the WORLD to judge the accuracy of results, was WRONG, again, it seems.. but, again, ONLY in America for American offices of the Presidency, and only some times (it tracks properly for most elections otherwise, it seems). The hand counting matched expected results, the machine counts didn't. That REQUIRES HONEST PEOPLE to VALIDATE the machines.. You can't successfully and reasonably argue that away, sorry.

COMMENT #106 [Permalink]

... Robert Reardon said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:45 pm PT...





This could be solved quite easily. If you go to this website: http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS, you'll see a list of New Hampshire precincts and how the votes were tabulated. The first two were hand-counted (great!). The third: Allenstown, had 990 votes cast, and they were tabulated by a Diebold machine. How long would it take to hand-count 990 ballots, and compare the totals to those that came out of the machine? A few hours?

COMMENT #107 [Permalink]

... DES said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:03 pm PT...





PLEASE NOTE: This is not about Candidate A winning or Candidate B losing. This is solely about the hackable, unsecure voting machines (optical scan in NH) that have been investigated and proven to be crap and yet are still deployed to count the majority of elections in this country. Whenever and wherever there is a discrepancy with electronic voting machines involved --- no matter how big or small the race, no matter if it's Repub or Dem --- Voting Integrity advocates look into it. It's what they do. Please do not assume or assign motives, intentions or conclusions to anyone here that are not EXPLICITLY stated. Brad makes crystal clear that he doesn't care who won or lost, just that the results are ACCURATE. Period. The site owner is not responsible for the opinions of commenters in this open forum. No endorsement of commenters' opinions is either intended or implied. In addition, please note that The Brad Blog does not allege that fraud (or "rigging") has actually occurred --- only that the results of any contest that incorporates electronic voting systems should be subject to exacting scrutiny and independent verification prior to certification. Thank you.

COMMENT #108 [Permalink]

... None said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:04 pm PT...





Reardon, 4 to 5 hours to hand count. And at $46,000 for a recount, that is pretty cheap compared to other states. But it would be a huge mistake. The paul people are going to screw the election intregrity folks by walking into this baited trap. Step 1 - make a big stink and get media coverage

Step 2 - recount shows paper ballots (with little or no chain of custody) match the electronic tabulation

Step 3 - ??? Diebold profits We all lose. There will be no fraud found in NH. If they did rig it on opscan, they had a plan to swap ballots to match. We are talking about a few delegates (who cares) in exchange for having the media ever listen to EI folks again. I agree with this statement -- 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. There may be a minor discrepancy but not enough to care about it. No magic Paul gets +1000 votes.

COMMENT #109 [Permalink]

... None said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:10 pm PT...





Oh, yeah, the OTHER data from ronrox is wrong. He scraped from Boston.com or Politico which has wrongo data. Get it from NH SOS. Loundonderry is one example. So before you howl about how the 2000 "other" voter should be this or that. Just know your source data has errors.

COMMENT #110 [Permalink]

... Semmelweis said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:30 pm PT...







See here for a linear regression analysis of NH Clinton results. The variable that has the highest explanatory power is voting method (Diebold vs. hand) even when precinct size is taken into account.

COMMENT #111 [Permalink]

... TruthIsAll said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:33 pm PT...





Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The New Hampshire primary was rigged

TruthIsAll ALL 20 FINAL pre-election polls (3-4% MoE) had Obama winning by an average of 8% over HRC.

http://www.realclearpoli...c_primary-194.html#polls And the early (unadjusted) exit poll had Obama winning: by 8%.

https://bradblog.com/?p=5535 The Zogby polling trend was to Obama:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1417 Once again, as in 2004 and 2006, the average of the final pre-election polls matched the unadjusted exit poll.

Once again, as in 2004 and 2006, the probability that so many polls would exceed the MoE is close to ZERO. Once again, as always, we will be inundated with tortured explanations of why the polls were "wrong".

Once again, as always, the mantra that the polls were wrong implies that fraud could not have occurred.

Once again, as always, the CNN Final Exit poll was forced to match an implausible final vote count.

Once again, as always, there will not be a random, robust, credible ballot recount.

Once again, as always, there will be a hue and cry to eliminate exit polling altogether. Once again, as always, the uninformed masses will believe whatever the media tells them.

Once again, as always, there will be a variety of bogus rationalizations to “explain” the astounding discrepancies.

Once again, as always, the media myth: Clinton’s emotional display won her a huge, last-minute female sympathy vote.

Once again, as always, they can hardly wait for November to be fleeced again. In 2004 they produced another bin Laden tape the weekend before the 2004 election.

In 2004 the media fell for the Rove myth of a massive fundamental Christian voter turnout.

But the fact is that the Democratic GOTV effort overwhelmed that of the GOP. Once again, it’s DÉJÀ VU all over again.

COMMENT #112 [Permalink]

... Fred said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:37 pm PT...





Can we get a Ron Paul supporter or two who know how those Diebold machines work to rig the election in favor of Ron Paul? If no one is playing by the rules, why should we?

COMMENT #113 [Permalink]

... moon in the house of moe said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:28 pm PT...





I think NH was rigged for Hillary. But listening to Keith Obermann reporting on the racist remarks made by Karl Rove about why Obama lost - he's lazy. He insulted Hillary during the debate with phrases he'd learned playing pickup basketball at Harvard - I was struck by a thought: What if Rove operatives- the fixers of the last three elections - put in the fix to eliminate the candidate Rove fears and help the candidate he thinks Republicans can beat? It is a little more appealing to think that Bill and Hill were ready for a trouncing and then got visited by the vote fairy, then to think of the Clintons as the moral equivalent of Turd Blossom.

COMMENT #114 [Permalink]

... Carol said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:53 pm PT...





DENNIS KUCINICH HAS ASKED FOR A RECOUNT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE! WRITE THE NH SECRETARY OF STATE AND SUPPORT DENNIS!

COMMENT #115 [Permalink]

... Kurt said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:10 pm PT...





A little logic here. The big money boys control both Clinton and Obama, so why influence or rig the election? Answer: to keep it a horse race. If Obama was a runaway winner many independent minded Democratic voters might vote for Paul or Kucinich, the anti-establishment candidates.

COMMENT #116 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean in FL-13 said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:37 pm PT...





TRUTH IS ALL!(#111) Oh, how I've missed you. Perfect post, as always. You have been on my mind all week; reading you is a baptism. Thank you. WOW and PACIFICA BOB (#63/ 64)

How Helping Hillary Could Potentially Hurt her...

...I am certain you on onto something. Even if it is just their evil PLAN B, or ipso facto, the perfect way to flip their golden coin and defeat an enemy TWICE. All of us here know perfectly well

what this cabal is capable of. They have plans well in advance of our capacity to imagine what devilishness they will next deliver.

Along those lines... NONE (#108)

Good point, but might I offer up a foolishly optimistic, but certainly worth considering, alternative to the possible RECOUNT scenario you've outlined:

1) HAND COUNT THE VOTES

2) ENSURE the process is random, transparent, and witnessed by the public. If anyone could insist on and ACTUALLY GET that, it would be the RON PAUL supporters. They got a blimp. Betcha they could get a recount, too.

3) WATCH THE PROCESS like a paranoid hawk with a videocamcorder in the hen house and a hard-on for hurtin' the bad guys and a) if the random sampling/ recount is NOT accurate THEN we:

4) MAKE A BIG STINK AND GET MEDIA COVERAGE. ...and if the results from the OPEN COUNTING THE VOTES in PUBLIC, and (emphasis added) the public is now MILLIONS OF PEOPLE STRONG n' UNIFIED and AWAKE (interest and participation rates higher than we here in the EI community have ever enjoyed)--if these results are valid, then isn't that a GOOD thing?... I'm no Polyanna...much more of a Cassandra, really. I, for one, am not expecting any reassurances to come from this recount/ I've lived through a couple (barely) and I think when the RON PAUL supporters, and in fact the candidate himself, and hell even OPRAH--bring their cameras down to the recount--they won't stand for the process as is. ..we always ask, in this forum, with our fists to the sky: WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? (I would suggest it lives in Kenya, where homeless men, woman and children huddle around thier fires in refugee camps...watching the New Hampshire election results coming in and call it "rigged".) What if a recount in NH further exposes this devilish tyranny? What if the election engineering master class didn't prepare for RON PAUL supporters matching funding dollar to dollar on-line, or the tenacity and smarts of BRADBLOG readers, or--God Forbid--First AND Second Ammendment people WORKING TOGETHER...Mets AND Yankee fans towing the load...etc, al.

You get the drift.

COMMENT #117 [Permalink]

... wow said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:59 pm PT...





Dennis Kucinich has more courage in his finger than the entire democratic party. He makes me proud to be an American. God bless you Dennis for your duty to your country!

COMMENT #118 [Permalink]

... Carol said on 1/11/2008 @ 12:49 am PT...





Nick said: "The fact is bigots don't want to have to answer to being bigots. So, they lie." C'mon, Nick. Do you think the people in Iowa simply overrode their own "bigotry" and voted for Obama? Guess you don't know too many bigots! They'd vote their sexist or racist predilections without even casting suspicion--and do it right out in the open! A racist would vote for one of the white men and a sexist would too, and no one would even question why. It doesn't matter that there was no "privacy" of the voting booth in Iowa. People could have "gotten around" their "bigotry" anyway!

COMMENT #119 [Permalink]

... stan cal said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:43 am PT...





NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE POLL,ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCREDIT A POLL ARIZONTALLY.THAT MEANS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WAS SUPRESS,SIMPLE FABRICATED VICTORY.

COMMENT #120 [Permalink]

... Savantster said on 1/11/2008 @ 7:25 am PT...





It's clear that the establishment wants Hillary on that ticket, for potentially various reasons. If she wins, she's just a Shrub Light, and shilling for the insurance industry to boot.. Or, they know "she" is easy to trash.. Romney cried yesterday when asked about his dead father, not a peep from the media.. Billary has a -waiver- in her voice, the media implies she was BAWLING.. I was pretty disgusted when I saw the video of what -actually- happened.. The media is -definitely- gunning for her. What's more disturbing.. NPR/WPR (Wisconsin Public Radio) again today slapped down this conversation.. They were talking with a guy from a watchdog called Accuracy In Media (aim.org, I think) and were talking about how the "media just got it wrong" about NH.. Apparently some INFORMED called called in and said something about the machine counts (I didn't hear it) because Joy Cardine said "we're not talking about hacked machines or nine eleven or anything like that, we're just talking about the media". .. the "expert's" assertion of what happened? "Democrats just got tired of all these polls and simply lied about who they were going to vote for".. *boggle*.. and only the people voting for Hillary and Obama, apparently, since all the other races closely matched their polls.. Hmmmm.. How do you have a conversation about the "media getting it wrong" if they DIDN'T get it wrong? .. false premise leads to false conclusions, which helps no one. And this "expert" not ONCE mentioned how the media is a circus because that's what makes money.. He [rightly] said Journalists were "lazy" these days, but failed to acknowledge that all the -real- journos are gone.. The reason we have all these "pundits" and "talking heads" is because THAT'S WHAT SELLS COMMERCIAL SLOTS. Follow the money, stupid.. Pretty piss poor watchdog if they aren't pointing their finger right in the face of capitalism.. The guy's suggestion.. "look for other news outlets, don't bother with the mainstream".. Ok, great.. good idea.. saying that on NPR where a very small percentage of people listen.. And it doesn't address the serious problems with our media.. how about some suggestions to fixing things? I called in last night and mentioned that part of the massive cost of a campaign these days (over $1 billion is going to be spent on the Presidency, they think) is ADVERTISING.. and networks #2 or #3 revenue stream is political ads.. The guy said "exactly right", and didn't address the second part of my statement, "how has this tracked since we lost the fairness doctrine in the 80s and you now pretty much have to buy your votes?".. he left that off when he started prattling on about other nonsense. I've said it before, I'll say it again.. I can draw a direct line to CORPORATIONS for almost EVERY ill we have in our society. We need more regulation, not less.. The only difference between Kucinich and Paul is that one issue, for the most part. They BOTH want to restore the Constitution, undo the trade agreements that have choked the life out of our economy, reestablish the rule of law.. With Paul wanting to dismantle the Fed and Kucinich wanting to clamp down on Corps. One works, one causes chaos and pays the boss for doing pretty much nothing.. hmm..

COMMENT #121 [Permalink]

... David S said on 1/11/2008 @ 8:41 am PT...





I didn't catch every aspect of what happened in NH but I'm wondering..... Did anyone at any time within the MSM ever ask aloud that they seemed to have gotten the demograghics correct but not the Exit polling numbers? I thought these were both asked at the same time?

It's great that Kucinich wrote that letter but if the SecState of NH ignores or denies, it would just be another example how the powers that be (corporate greed) don't want the truth to be known, least they lose their grip on their preceived power over us all!

COMMENT #122 [Permalink]

... twisting said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:25 am PT...





Just to shed a light of reason on this comment thread...you realize the only voting irregularities that have been found are actually in the HAND-COUNTED ballots? Since the win people have been desperately looking for some way of saying Hillary cheated, down to even arguing that she somehow rigged it so that the extra ballots sent out would be in alphabetical order. Re-count all you want, I think the only mistakes you'll find will continue to be in the hand-counted ballots!

COMMENT #123 [Permalink]

... DES said on 1/11/2008 @ 3:42 pm PT...





Reposting and reiterating for everyone reading this site: This is not about Candidate A winning or Candidate B losing. This is solely about the hackable, unsecure voting machines (optical scan in NH) that have been investigated and proven to be crap and yet are still deployed to count the majority of elections in this country. Whenever and wherever there is a discrepancy with electronic voting machines involved --- no matter how big or small the race, no matter if it's Repub or Dem --- Voting Integrity advocates look into it. It's what they do. Please do not assume or assign motives, intentions, or conclusions to anyone here that are not EXPLICITLY stated. Brad makes crystal clear that he doesn't care who won or lost, just that the results are ACCURATE. Period. The site owner is not responsible for the opinions of commenters in this open forum. No endorsement of commenters' opinions is either intended or implied. In addition, please note that The Brad Blog does not allege that fraud (or "rigging") has actually occurred --- only that the results of any contest that incorporates electronic voting systems must be subject to exacting scrutiny and independent verification prior to certification. Thank you.

COMMENT #124 [Permalink]

... 4RonPaul said on 1/13/2008 @ 3:57 pm PT...

