My Response to Certain Important People around here and CNN Exit Polls

[JMDEM]

First, in most people's minds, this is a debate about who won and who lost, which is a shame and a pity. Your candidate won? Obviously there was no election fraud. Your candidate lost? Obviously there was election fraud. But in neither case are people actually looking at whether or not fraud existed. This is NOT about who won or lost. It is about whether we SHOULD EVEN VOTE, for all the difference it makes.

Second, by some accounts (Rasumussen poll), we had an 18% swing last night from pre-poll predictions to the final "actual" outcome. This should raise a huge red flag that things were not right. Of course, if your favorite candidate came out on top, why look? You won. But what happened if your candidate is then at the target end of the exact same type of fraud in November? "Miraculous turnaround for Huckabee -- overcomes 18 pt deficit to become President". How would you feel then? Wouldn't it be better to make sure such problems don't exist now?

The insanity of this is mind boggling to me. I went to the grocery store last night and the cashier rang me up twice for one expensive item. Rang me up twice. How did I know? I had the receipt. Currently I'm a research assistant for a professor at a college, and in some weird fit of paranoia, he decided last semester to not let students know how or why they received the grades they received on their exams and projects. The line of students at the Dean's door was a mile long, and he was immediately ordered to reverse this policy and to provide full disclosure to the students on their grades. So why don't we have that with our most precious gift -- our right to vote?

As for the CNN exit polls -- all the sudden we trust CNN??? Oh -- only when our candidate wins. Okay. I get it. Those exit polls are the "NEW AND IMPROVED" Mitofsky self-modifying polls that mutate as the actual votes come in. They are DESIGNED to prevent the sort of embarassment that happened in Florida in 2000. They aren't valid IMHO.

If Hillary won NH fair and square, great. But we don't know. And if there was fraud, it was run by the Republicans, and you better damned well better know that it will rear its ugly head again several times this election, quite possibly to deny Hillary the Presidency itself at the end. And oh do the Republicans have the smokescreen already in place. "Well, you know, in the privacy of the voting booth, I guess people ARE just sexist, and aren't ready for a woman President".

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, PEOPLE! And the way the system is set up, we will NEVER know. And that is the real issue around here, not who won or lost. And for the Hillary supporters, you better be sweating bullets that IF this type of fraud occured, it sure as shit will be pulled in the General Election against your candidate. The smokescreen is already in place.

[bryant69]

1. It will posted pretty continuously whether we have any evidence or not

History teaches us that much. Set aside that the Republicans clearly hate Hillary Clinton, they must have rigged things so that she would win.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. That's who they want to run against because they have garbage on Bill again.

Supposedly, 2 affairs since leaving office. Don't underestimate them. There really IS a method to their madness.

[bryant69]

10. I'm not underestimating them

What evidence do you have that Clinton has had 2 affairs since leaving office? Or can you source that?

Which Republicans/Conservatives rigged this election? Or is it just enough to say Diebold and then that's that?

Bryant

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. How'd ya miss it, bryant69? Here's the link:

Bill Robinson| BIO | I'M A FAN OF THIS BLOGGER
RSS

The Big Clinton Story

Posted November 27, 2007 | 06:49 PM (EST)
Read More: 2008 Election, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton Cheating, Bill Clinton Infidelity, Gay, Hillary Clinton, Media, Media Coverage Of 2008 Election, Political News, Trent Lott, Trent Lott Gay Male Escort, Trent Lott Scandal, Breaking Politics News


Look, I am concerned. I've just spent two weeks travelling and speaking with media elites in L.A., Chicago, NYC, and D.C. and among other things, I was repeatedly told that The New York Times and The L.A. Times are "sitting on a BIG Clinton story." What concerns me is that this story has nothing to do with Hillary, her policy positions, her record, or her presidential potential. The "big story" everyone is sitting on apparently has to do with the many current affairs of Bill Clinton, whom, they will allege, has a gal in every port. I know, I know, you roll your eyes, you yawn, you wonder how anyone could possibly care about such things, true or not, when there is so much at stake in this upcoming election. But then you see what is going on with today's Trent Lott/gay hustler rumors, this week's Hillary /lesbian aide rumors, and you remember that the ghost of Karl Rove still haunts us.



I am concerned not for the welfare of Senator Clinton's campaign, but for our election cycles, which have turned into the same bipolar gossip cycles of the newsstand tabloids. I worry that these news organizations are sitting on the story for the wrong reasons, waiting for the moment of maximum impact for such drivel. For some reason, hearing about this dusty-sounding rumor-story raised a red flag for me that we may not have come as far as I'd hoped since 2004. I see the same gay-baiting, underhanded political tricks, the Obama/Osama slurs, and it reminds me that like many of the online communities I surf, I live in a media-elite bubble where we forget that the vast majority of people get their political news from network television, which in turn culls it from the ever diminishing journalistic resources of the ever consolidating, ever partisan print media, which most definitely has skin in the game this time around... which is terrifying.<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-robinson/the-big-clinton-story_b_74391.html

[Wednesdays]

97. The Rupugs don't need no stinkin' evidence to make their case

and the public gets swayed by it, regardless. Ever heard of "Swiftboating?"

[bryant69]

101. Ah. So if we nominate Obama or Edwards or Kucinich,

your theory is that they won't swiftboat that candidate? Hillary is the only one they could swiftboat?

I'm not sure I buy that.

Bryant

[Kittycat]

11. Not to mention how polarizing and divisive HRC is. Maybe some people (independents & left leaning)

republicans do not want to relive the Clinton days. Nominating her is a sure fire way to see McCain sitting in the white house. I have no doubt that's what bush has promised him.

[Leopolds Ghost]

83. How can any Hill supporter or opponent deny that she is Repub's desired opponent

For the same reasons liberals salivated over Reagan in 1976???????

They hated him and considered him easy to beat (and he would have been soundly defeated in 1976).

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. K&R

[AndyA]

3. We really do not know what happened.

How can so many polls be so wrong? Are votes being manipulated? Is the media spinning this to their corporate owner's advantage?

The only thing we do know is that something is going on, and we better figure out what it is and do something about it, or we're going to be griping about the latest abuses from Republican President McHuckney in January 2010.

[alllyingwhores]

15. "Are votes being manipulated? Is the media spinning this to their corporate owner's advantage?"

Uhmmm....YES and YES.

I think the more pertinent question is what exactly has the DLC done about it in the last eight years?

Oh yeah...NOTHING.

[ccpup]

4. the 18% swing you mentioned

was based on Under 30 voters who never showed up to vote! This has been discussed earlier. Women voted overwhelmingly for Hillary, men -- by a smaller margin -- for Obama and the Under 30 vote apparently didn't vote in the numbers they were expecting.

In that 18% swing you mentioned is also a 17% undecided factor the media glossed over or didn't mention in their "Hillary's done, Obama has momentum" storyline, so perhaps those Undecideds broke for Hillary and not him?

[TornadoTN]

14. Interesting take and I don't disagree but I have reservations

The Under 30's probably didn't show up in the numbers they were hoping for, that seems apparent at this point. Women turned out and did break for Hillary.

That 17% undecided block bothers me though. The fact that it swung that far to Hillary would seem to indicate that Obama had a major gaff or something unexpected happened to the campaign. How many of that 17% actually showed up to vote? How many swung to other candidates? What percentage broke to Obama? I just don't see how that many people would have all made their mind up to vote for Hillary in the period of week where most polls were showing Obama pulling away. Even Hillary's own polls showed her down by 11 points going into yesterday!

Stranger things have happened I suppose, but it's somewhat convienant that the media has the "HILLARY'S COMEBACK!!!" storyline to jam down our throats now. It seems like they wanted this all along.

I don't know. I'm not particularly attached to any one candidate; we have several outstanding ones. I just didn't see this one coming and would hate for something to be amiss in this.

[ccpup]

17. the number of those Polled who were "strongy" decided

and were "highly" unlikely to change their minds was high as well. Add to that the fact that many of those undecideds were disgusted with the media's burying of Hillary and decided to vote for her because of that, and the swing might become more apparent.

Also take into account that it's not often that the winner of the Iowa Caucus goes on to win the NH Primary. So, historically, this win -- as razor thin as it is -- makes sense.

[yodermon]

36. 17% were undecided in the final polls? really?

from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/9/3472/39073/962/433291 there is this image of the final polls (not exit polls)


where are the 17% undecideds?

oh, right.

Larry johnson said so. :eyes:

[Garbo 2004]

38. Check out the individual polls, some do cite undecided though the summary chart apparently doesn't.

[Leopolds Ghost]

84. The undisclosed in exit polls broke in Hillary's favor due to the Wilder / Bradley effect

In other words, white women in a state that is very aware of race issues
in nearby Massachusetts (many are Boston exurbanites) did a gut check
after Obama made Hillary cry.

(And as a "moderate black" commentator said on Tweety, what Hillary said
when she choked up was code words like "I hate to see our country roll the
dice like this, it's personal. I don't want America to take a chance not after all we've been through". Or words to that effect.

As the commentator pointed out, statements like these are egotistical at best and racially charged at worse.

[uberllama42]

109. Obama made Hillary cry?

First of all, she didn't cry. There was emotion audible in her voice, but there weren't tears running down her face.

Second, I don't see what Obama did to trigger that rare display of humanity. Perhaps I missed something he said, but all that I got out of Hillary's comments was that she was scared after losing Iowa.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

111. You really think so?

I didn't take those comments that way personally... I felt it was more a jab at Obama's lack of experience that Clinton keeps pointing out. This has seemed to be her prevailing message all along. It's hard for me to see race having anything to do with it, but then again maybe I'm just naive.

[Junkdrawer]

5. ""NEW AND IMPROVED" Mitofsky self-modifying polls that mutate as the actual votes come in"

Well, that would explain a lot...

[TornadoTN]

6. Agreed. There's nothing wrong with asking questions

We need to do more though. We need verification of our electoral process and find a way to get the corporate interests out of the counting and tabulation of elections.

I'm not sure what happened last night and I'm not about to go off on conspiracy theories or even say it was tainted. But when things swing like that in such a short period of time without a major issue to attribute it to, I wonder how that happens. Sure, the CNN poll may add up now, but the exit polling last night was still showing Obama out in front by a decent margin.

[ccpup]

8. a Thread you might find both interesting and informative

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4009855&mesg_id=4009855

[earth mom]

9. I'm with you 100% I don't trust those polls. Not after the STOLEN 2004 election.

No way in HELL. :grr:

[SIMPLYB1980]

12. You should check this out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218

[guruoo]

62. Thank you. n/t

[robbedvoter]

13. Voting machines are owned by republicans. They use them in GE, when it matters

Much as you think the Dem primaries are the center of the world, it's not important enough to them NOW to let out the big guns.
Exit polls matched. Prior polls didn't account for the Tweety factor in their sample (57% angry women)

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. The Tweety factor, per tonight, was white women unwilling to peak ill of a black man in a poll.

Doug Wilder effect / Tom Bradley effect.

Voters wanted to appear magnanimous and not appear as though they were
swayed by gender OR race, so they remained studiously "undecided" much
like the amous old Reagan/Bush undecideds. ("If you don't have something good to say about Obama, bless his heart, don't day anything...")

Tweety said Sabato confirmed this, "it is a very reasonable explanation"
and anonymous pollsters from every firm pointed him in that direction
"if he wanted to look for answers"

[Hoof Hearted]

16. So you start your own anti-Skinner thread? That's fucked up.

If you wanted to respond to Skinner, did ya think about hitting the REPLY button? Or, maybe, you just needed a to be stroked a little more than a simple reply would provide you?

Elvis been by to see you recently? We don't really know if he's dead either.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. I've seen this post before.. where.. Hmm...

Elvis been by to see you recently? We don't really know if he's dead either.

Oh, I remember now, it was right after the 2000 election.

But you forgot to call me (and those less credulous than you) a Sore/Loserman and to get over it.

[JMDEM]

41. When does mildly disagreeing with Skinner amount to being "anti Skinner"?

And where do you get off throwing such dirt at me?
If this post was so repulsive, why hasn't it been deleted?

[Enrique]

18. there are receipts for this election

they used an optical scan system.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. Receipts are little good when no one looks at them. n/t

[Enrique]

29. the OP says the receipts don't exist

they do.

and the receipts being there DOES do good, because if necessary they CAN be examined.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. It's necessary. n/t

[Enrique]

32. so are you calling for the paper ballots to be recounted?

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Yes. And you and other Hillary supporters are the best people to make that request.

As Democrats, we all take elections seriously.

[Enrique]

37. I wouldn't oppose it

but doing that would cost money, and I haven't seen anything that makes me think it would be worth the money.

[jbnow]

56. How's this for a worthy reason:

Besides the polls before the election and besides that Obama won the hand counted rural counties and lost in the bigger Diebold counties the exit poll results were revealed.

All the networks shared one source, did not do their own polls. Edison/Mitofsky gave the data to ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC. Only the weighted data was to be released (unlike 2004) but Chris Matthews has a big mouth.
He saw the raw data election evening and it showed Obama was "going to win a significant victoyt" and it matched the earlier polls.

He isn't talking about the machines, he is just perplexed why people lied to exit pollsters.

[creeksneakers2]

68. NBC announced it was too close to call at 8:00 PM

That was the moment the polls closed. If the exit polls changed at all after that, they didn't change significantly. Perhaps Tweety saw some data from earlier in the day or raw data that wasn't properly weighted. It could have overcounted the Obama districts.

The exit polls had it right from the beginning.

[leftynyc]

92. As I understand NH rules

Only a candidate can request it. So Obama better speak up if he feels he was cheated.

[JMDEM]

42. But nobody can see those receipts

Review the NH voting laws. You've been conned.

[L. Coyote]

19. How do we get anyone in power to examine the 2004 irregularities?

It does not seem to matter much if 2004 was fixed, since noone will investigate as long as Rs are in power.

[Enrique]

26. John Conyers investigated

report can be found here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

[Bonobo]

20. Skinner is correct when he says if you can't explain the accuracy of the exit polls...

there is no argument.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. In 2004, the exit polls were tweaked, post election.

To match the actuals.

So, what's the point of them? As I see it, there are only two:
1) to obtain demographic information on the vote.
2) to place an imprimatur of legitimacy on the vote.

I find it eminently plausible that they're tweaking the exit polls as the votes are counted. As someone else said, they don't want a repeat of the debacle (from their perspective) of the 2004 election.

The raw data will never be released. What Skinner is asking for is not deliverable. Going forward, you'll find that mitofsky will report exit poll data that, like NH, will always agree with the official vote count.

They can do math too.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. actually, the raw data ARE released

The 2004 data were freely available for over a year, beginning in early 2005. (They're still available to members of ICPSR or the Roper Center.) It's kind of amazing how few people -- including some of the leading Exit Poll Fraud! Experts -- ever used them for anything.

People complain that the precinct identifiers weren't released. Survey researchers are kind of pesky about confidentiality. But it's not as if anyone has to guess or debate* that, sure enough, most exit poll respondents say they voted for Kerry. The question is what that means.

*ETA: My dumb: the data could have been hacked to cover up the fact that actually Bush was initially ahead. ;) Or in any other direction. But I've seen no evidence that anyone ever tinkered with the raw data.

[Richard Steele]

21. K&R

[truckin]

22. Amen, brother. You hit the nail on the head.

[tom_paine]

27. Exactly. Well said. K & R. I also posted something along these lines.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2640123

What's funny is that we Edwards supporters, along with Biden, Richardson , Kuncinich et al, are the among the only ones who can think clearly about this because we don't have a dog in this fight.

While the Hillary and Obama supporters are full of slames and screeching "sour grapes" as well as other ad hominems at each other, Bushie vote-riggers are laughing all the way to the Imperial Throne.

And even if this was a legitimate outcome (it is possible), the larger issues of non-trasparency remain.

Which is what you and I are trying to say, along with others, but it is like trying to be overheard during a flaming cyclone howling with 100 MPH winds. We cannot even hear ourselves above the cacophonous din, it seems.

Sigh.

[Kip Humphrey]

30. If CNN's exit polls were so close, why did they avoid discussing Hillary's lead for over 1 hour?

That was clearly the hot story unfolding as vote totals were coming in. I guarantee you, if CNN's exit polls showed Hillary winning or a tie or near tie, Hilary's increasing lead would have been all the talk! But it wasn't . It wasn't until there were sufficient results reported to "normalize" the exit poll results to those reported totals.

The whole thing STINKS and can be simply resolved by a hand recount.

For all you DU Hillary supporters: demand a hand recount of the paper ballots to ensure election integrity and confirm Hillary's win! Let's show the world the Democratic party is all about protecting the integrity of our votes and dedicated to fair, accurate elections. Who knows, we might discover how better to track voting before, during and after which can only benefit us all come November. Of course, we might uncover skulduggery in which case a hand recount would strike a blow for election integrity.

So, what's wrong with either outcome of a hand recount?

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Exactly. Hillary supporters, request a hand recount.

Democrats have a unique opportunity right now to demonstrate that we take elections seriously, and there's no person better situated to make that request than the apparent winner.

[leftynyc]

93. Why doesn't Obama ask for it?

The request has to come from a candidate in NH and why on earth should it come from Clinton?

[Tarc]

104. Obama won't, because there is nothing to challenge

He is proving that he is much smarter than many of his supporters around here, who do not like the result and then cast about for reasons both mundane and insane as to why that happened. Unfortunately, it seems like the insane side is winning.

[Diane R]

67. I fully agree. The supporters of ALL candidates must ask to confirm the results.

[creeksneakers2]

69. CNN didn't call the election for Obama

which meant he must not have been up by 12 points in the exit polls. In fact, it was too close to call. McCain was projected early but Hillary was not.

Its fine with me if there's a recount but nobody who is calling fix will be persuaded by that either. They refuse to recognize reality when it conflicts with their own preconceived notions.

[OneBlueSky]

39. i trust vote counts and exit polls about as much as I trust BushCo . . .

which is to say not at all . . . I don't know if last night's results were legitimate or not . . . I DO know that no one has yet proven to me that they were . . .

[arendt]

40. The OP has made a SERIOUS point. Better try to investigate now than in Nov. n/t

[helderheid]

44. Absolutely exactly right.

[helderheid]

43. THANK YOU SO MUCH for this post!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[endarkenment]

45. Do we know for a fact that the exit poll data has been adjusted?

Is there any access to the pre-adjusted data?

[annabanana]

47. more importantly... Do we know that it *hasn't*?. . . . n/t

[endarkenment]

52. yes indeed

Both the folks claiming nothing happened and those claiming that the fix is in need to determine what the facts are before running off half cocked. The facts that we have are that the opinion polls pre election were way off. The critical date, the exit polls, are only valid if they have not been 'adjusted', and as far as I know - that information has not been established one way or another.

[creeksneakers2]

70. That's not as important

How do we know anything "hasn't?" If its a wild conspiracy theory and there's no proof its best to not believe it.

[Didereaux]

46. Goldfinger LIVES, and he is controlling the whole world!

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. I will add one thing to your comment

This is not about A CANDIDATE but THE PROCESS... and people have gone to jail over this shit already (Cuyahooga county)

Remember that since 2000 there are too many questions

That said, MAKE SURE YOU VOTE

[sam kane]

49. Skinner and others, why all the trust in Edison/Mitofsky?

As someone already said, "Remember what Edison/Mitofsky did on election night 2004. They posted the exit polls showing Kerry winning by 3% points, then quickly adjusted them to match the actual election results".

So the fact that their poll matches the official result means nothing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. I know that, why I have become quite cynical

[tom_paine]

54. It's like each time they are tweaking the Exit Polls to now factor in Bushie Election Fraud.

In 2002, there were no Exit Polls.

Suddenly, in 2004, the Exit Polls self-correct to agree with Bushei Election Fraud.

It stands to reason (not that I am saying this makes it a 100% certainty or anything) Bushie Election Frauders are becoming more adept at it every time they get away with it. Every time they get away with it, they see where something leaked through and they got caught.

Meanwhile, the Exit Pollsters are trying to figure out, gosh darn it, why all of a sudden and coincidentally right after the privatization of the vote and the voting transparency goin dark, why they keep getting it wrong all the time now.

As per usual in upside-down Bush-Occuptied America, instead of the discrepancies triggering the need to investigate, what it triggers is another bout fo crproate self-examination and a vow "to get it righ this time".

Hence, the self-correcting Exit Polls which now take into account Bushie Election Fraud.

The Bushies could not have failed to notice what an inmportant part Exit Polls played in the downfall of Bushfriends such as Ferdinand Marcos, and how they exposed their own operations in 2000.

Have the Exit Polls already been neutralized? My guess would be if they haven't yet, they are on the short list of Bushie Things to Do. But I think they have, and the self-correcting Exit Poll is but one example.

[jbnow]

57. Weighted exit polls always match the results

because they say they are just to show trends.

But Chris Matthews said tonight that he saw the raw data of the exit polls at 5:30 last night and they showed a "significant victory" for Obama that matched earlier polls.

They say they (Edison/Mitofsky who did it for ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC) aren't to reveal fraud so the weighted ones are all we have the right to see.

[nashville_brook]

58. amen!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

51. This is correct

Well stated

K&R

[balantz]

53. It's pretty simple to me

I won't trust a goddamned bit of it when there is so much at stake for us citizens, and so much at stake for the corporations who CLEARLY run this country. Who owns CNN? To what corporate heiarchy belongs Edison/Mitofsky?

[New Earth]

55. thank you

this is what I would have posted, if I had more ballz.

[nashville_brook]

59. you hit the nail on the head. transparency is the only answer.

[BlackVelvet04]

60. Just who do you think

rigged the vote count and why?

[defendandprotect]

61. HEY--- I didn't know that --- !!!

As for the CNN exit polls -- all the sudden we trust CNN??? Oh -- only when our candidate wins. Okay. I get it.
Those exit polls are the "NEW AND IMPROVED" Mitofsky self-modifying polls that mutate as the actual votes come in.
They are DESIGNED to prevent the sort of embarassment that happened in Florida in 2000. They aren't valid IMHO.

When did this happen: "self-modifying pollls that mutate as the actual votes come in !!!

[althecat]

63. Mindblowingly excellent post JMDEM.....

:yourock:

really....

a lot.

[watrwefitinfor]

64. Does John Edwards have standing

to ask for a hand count of the optical scans? Would he? The word was he wanted to challenge the 2004 Ohio vote, but wasn't in a position to. He keeps telling us he's a fighter - that he's not afraid to take them on. Anybody in a position to ask him?

Another question: In 2006 we had reason to believe the Bushies diddled the machines, but they underestimated the amount of diddling it would take when we turned out in such large numbers. What if they're not trying to win the nomination for Hillary, so much (though that may be part of it), as they are practicing - trying to see how much diddling it will take to overcome large spreads in the polls? In preparation for the huge number of Dem voters that will turn out in November, regardless of who our candidate might be.

I also urge honest skeptics and those unfamiliar with recent history to check out Junkdrawer's post about Republicans MESSING WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES as early as 1971.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2645077

Wat

[chimpymustgo]

65. Thank you JMDem. Question all. Trust but verify. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Hand count NOW!!

[Bonobo]

66. You're a good man or woman for standing up to ANY authority! Never stop!

[understandinglife]

71. "Not One Line Of Software Between A Voter And A Valid Election"

Period.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=488968&mesg_id=489004

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=488968&mesg_id=489004

Peace,
Bob

[truedelphi]

72. great discussion

Why are we allowing a precedent to be set of having the networks declare a winner when only 67% of the votes have been counted? We don't want that in the general election.

[Patsy Stone]

73. K&R

[creeksneakers2]

74. I object to your claim that everybody decides based on who won

The Hillary people didn't call fraud after Iowa. If Hillary won there I'm positive the people who hate her would have said she bussed people in.

Moderates are more inclined to go with the evidence no matter where it leads. If there was any real evidence of fraud I'd want to know about it as much as anybody. Democracy can't survive in the midst of fraud.

Some here spread lots of misinformation. I looked it up on the New Hampshire state site and I don't see how an election could be fixed. First, the preprogrammed fraud from Diebold theory doesn't work because before the elections they make dummy ballots and test the machines for all candidates. I didn't find anything specific but it looks like machine counted ballots are counted at municipal level. So there's no way to hack the central computer because it wouldn't agree with the totals from the individual municipalities. If somebody were to hack machines, he would have to hack hundreds of machines all over the state.

But nobody is looking for evidence of fraud. They are trying to prove it by questioning the outcome, then offering fraud as the only possible reason for what can't be explained by people who are not part of or familiar with the process. Its classic conspiracy nonsense. Don't know what he had for lunch before the suicide? It must be murder then!

People who go to the extremes believe in conspiracy theories and vice versa. Moderates don't. Hillary fans don't.

[JMDEM]

77. No fraud in Iowa -- of course

The voting was wide-open and exposed. Non-argument.

The "evidence of fraud" is not court-acceptable evidence, true. It is suspicion, which lies in the massive 1 day swing in the opinion polls versus the actual vote. It is certainly suspicious enough to warrant an actual investigation into fraud.

Your argument about no central tabulator is bogus. See the video on how to hack a diebold. There is a finite number of diebold machines in NH. They all take insertable modules that program them for the particular election. These are easily hacked. All (or as many as needed) the insertable modules for the entire state could have been hacked in just a few hours, at most, then distributed. No problemo. For a 10% swing, you only have to flip 5% of the vote. 1 vote in 20. If you have faith in the pre-vote polling data, you needed to flip 16 - 18% of the vote, or 8 - 10 votes out of 100. No problem to program each card to accomplish this.

I'll give Hillary credit for 8% out of the 18% flip, and say that if there was fraud, it was probably code that flipped one vote in 20. You have a precinct with only 80 people? Just 4 votes are flipped, and nobody ever knows who, how or why. Nobody. Obama still wins many precincts -- he just loses 1 vote in 20 that should have been his. Hardly detectable.

Nobody is looking for evidence of fraud YET because the damned charge that there may have been fraud has been raised in the last 24 hours. Duh. No time to investigate yet.

I "love" your last line (sarcasm). Hillary fans are immune to conspiracy theories. Right... So only Hillary fans are "sane". Uh huh. By definition, anyone not for Hillary must be insane, right? Typical smear. Not a "Hillary fan smear" but a fanatic smear, no matter what camp it comes from.

[creeksneakers2]

108. That doesn't explain how all the modules could be rounded up

to hack or be distributed with such a mass operation going undetected. The voting machines are stored by municipalities, so they are all over the place. All the substituting would have to be done on election day too since the machines are tested for accuracy five days before, and presumably locked up in the interim. The actual switching would have to occur in the plain sight of everybody including election judges and volunteers who watch voters and offer those who are having trouble assistance.

I didn't say everybody who wasn't for Hillary was insane. That's deduced using the same flawed logic that presumes a fraudulent election. Its true that conspiracy theories are generally believed by fanatics and not moderate people who weigh both sides. All fanatics don't believe in conspiracy theories.

To weigh both sides, one must examine what it would take to fix the elections. I'd love to see the video you speak of. Where is it?

[ProudDad]

80. They are computers

ANY COMPUTER CAN BE HACKED!

The DOD has been hacked...

The FBI has been hacked...

HELL, MICROSOFT has been hacked!!!

If there must be machine voting, the only solution is Open Source Software for what is essentially a brain-dead simple f*cking application!!!

Ah, but then the back doors would be discovered...

[creeksneakers2]

115. How many individual computers were there in New Hampshire?

Its not whether a computer can be hacked. Its whether hundreds of computers or more could be hacked in one day.

[Peggy Day]

98. Isn't Iowa's process really different? I mean it sounds like

everyone is in a room that votes. I'm not sure I understand the process, but it sounds really different.

[pauldp]

75. Thank You. It's really f**ng simple. HAND COUNT THE DAMN BALLOTS!

After the lies upon lies of the past eight years, people still insist on questioning my sanity
because I don't trust Edison Mitofsky or CNN . Unbelievable.

[Occam Bandage]

76. FUD it up, baby.

[JMDEM]

78. I want to repeat this for clarity

This was embedded earlier as a reply to someone else, but I want to repeat it here for clarity (somewhat edited):

A charge was made that nobody screamed "fraud" in the Iowa vote, therefore to scream "fraud" in the NH vote is bogus. But of course nobody screamed fraud in Iowa. The voting was wide-open and exposed in Iowa. Non-argument.

The "evidence of fraud" is not court-acceptable evidence, true. It is suspicion, which lies in the massive 1 day swing in the opinion polls versus the actual vote. It is certainly suspicious enough to warrant an actual investigation into fraud.

Any arguments against fraud because of a lack of central tabulator to manipulate are bogus. See the video on how to hack a diebold. There is a finite number of diebold machines in NH. They all take insertable modules that program them for the particular election. These are easily hacked. All (or as many as needed) the insertable modules for the entire state could have been hacked in just a few hours, at most, then distributed. No problemo. They are "burned" on EPROMs (Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory)or perhaps on flash memory cards, and the burning of the code into such a card only takes seconds per card. (Perhaps a minute at the most).

For a 10% swing, you only have to flip 5% of the vote. 1 vote in 20. If you have faith in the pre-vote polling data, you needed to flip 16 - 18% of the vote (worst-case scenario), or 8 - 9 votes out of 100. No problem to program each card to accomplish this.

I'll give Hillary credit for 8% out of the 18% flip, and say that if there was fraud, it was probably code that flipped one vote in 20. You have a precinct with only 80 people? Just 4 votes are flipped, and nobody ever knows who, how or why. Nobody. Obama still wins many precincts -- he just loses 1 vote in 20 that should have been his. Hardly detectable.

Nobody is looking for evidence of fraud YET because the charge that there may have been fraud has been raised in the last 24 hours. Duh. No time to investigate yet.

In my understanding, which may be wrong, only candidates can challenge a vote in NH. You or I or Ralph Nader CANNOT. WE cannot see the actual ballots that were scanned. We will NEVER see them, unless Kucinich or Gravel or Edwards has the guts to challenge the election. Only time will tell if this happens, but somehow I doubt it. We will probably NEVER know if the NH primary election was valid.

[jbnow]

79. It concerns me

how easily this is brushed off or seen as being a sore loser or a conspiracy nut.

It's good to have a race that hones our clients, the delegates were evenly split, it's not bad results because of the results.

It's the mathematics of the election polls, the results and the raw data of the exit polls simply not working together in districts using machines that failed every test in other states and were banned.

You're right that it has to be a candidate to ask for a recount.

I naively thought when the Dems got into power they'd do something about these and make the process better. They don't have to talk about any election having gone wrong, it's enough that they are so vulnerable to both hacking and errors.

People always talk about having proof. By the very nature of this there is no proof even if there is fraud or error, there is only statistics to point toward irregularity.
Proof or erroneous or correct results only come with investigation.

Don't people know November is coming?

[nikto]

82. Great link (if somebody hasn't already posted it)...

Right here:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530

[JCMach1]

81. Grrr... Verify the Bradley Effect with Obama in SC

Win or lose, the poll numbers should look different in a primary.

[carincross]

86. EXIT POLLS are used to verify the honesty of the vote

The importance of exit polls is not to give media conglomerates a "heads up." It's to verify the honesty of the actual vote and guarantee that the election is not fraudulent. The scary thing about the Hillary election (like the Kerry-Edwards election in 2004) is that the exit polls and the actual voting results were at an incredible variance. Chris Matthews said that he was given exit poll data at 5:30p that showed Obama clearly winning. In other countries this disparity calls the election into doubt. Here we have been trained to call the polling system into doubt.

What happened in New Hampshire should be a warning sign that we still may not have honest, verifiable elections. The real issue here is the possibility that once again some how the vote was skewed. Who won is far less important.

How do we throw the bastards out when the elections are rigged???

[The Wizard]

87. Pitch forks and torches (nt)

[Marrah_G]

94. Actually there was no great discrepency

I listened to it all afternoon and evening. The new england news was shocked by the exit polls coming out and were scrambling to figure out what happened.

The exit polls matched the final results.

Your source is Tweety for goodness sake.

[leftynyc]

95. And how do we know that people

told the truth in exit polls? That's why all the polling is bullshit. People lie - it's that simple. Also, what business is it of anyone as to how you vote?

[endarkenment]

107. The validity of the 'final' exit polls is in question.

As we know from 2004 the data may be adjusted with the official tally. That negates their value as an independent verification of that same official tally. It is still unclear if the NH final exit polls were adjusted in this manner.

[DeeDeeNY]

88. Excellent observations

The red flag to me was that the polling discrepancies were only for Hillary and Obama and no one else.

[droidamus2]

89. Interesting

It is interesting that nobody seems to be questioning the polls that had Obama tied or behind Hillary before Iowa and then all of a sudden, because Obama won a caucus in a small state, he is double digits ahead. The only real poll the counts is the vote. As others have stated in one way or another it does no good to question every election that doesn't go your way. I think electronic machines may be involved in some underhanded activities but in most cases where they have been questioned there has been other evidence of wrong doing. In Ohio 2004 for example, not enough machines so people have to stand in line is just one bit of evidence that an effort was being made to manipulate the election. In Florida 2000, taking people off voting rolls and the overt attempt to make sure no recount was done. If anybody has any evidence other than 'gee the nationwide leader in the POLLS won in NH' I would like to hear about it. Though I do believe we must be vigilant in making sure that nobody is gaming our elections I also think it hurts us to make every anomaly into election fraud. One way to get people not to vote is to convince them, wrongly or rightly, that the system is rigged and their vote doesn't really count. Since that seems to be what the Republicans like to do, lower voter turnout supposedly works in their favor, you are just playing into their hands. Besides NH is one small state early in the process. Let's see how it goes from here on out. For all we know Edwards will take South Carolina or Nevada and really throw the race up for grabs.

[NoFederales]

90. Vote Integrity--been ignored for so long (including by our Candidates)

WHY should anyone care to believe that the individual vote really matters? We are a nation of Spectators, enthused Spectators, who might like a little virtual interactivity, but it's the goddamned entertainment that is so craved. Even for the "enlightened", message boards have become personal, virtual addictions to immediate gratification of opinion making and truthiness-seeking. We are so smug; but are we really independent, or revolutionary, or free-thinkers? Is meaningful persuasion going on "out there"?

I've been thinking I should give up trying to stay abreast of internet information, of reading message boards. Maybe I do more harm to myself than good, maybe I should focus on realities close to hand? But like any addiciton, can I do it?

NoFederales

[eridani]

91. How about some fucking MANDATORY AUDITS?!?!?

I really don't care much about the innards of my laboratory scales, but I do care whether they consistently weigh sets of standard weights accurately. This gets done once a day, even if a scale has never flunked since its purchase date.

It isn't relevant to prove that opscans COULD be hacked. Just AUDIT the damn mofos to find out if any WERE hacked. Any statistician could tell you how many ballots need to be checked by handcounts to attain any confidence level you like.

[Peggy Day]

99. Thank you.

Why all the bickering? These machines aren't trustworthy. This is the perfect time, early in the race to just see. They have paper ballots to compare against. It would be so simple.
Maybe Kucinich would do this.
I am so frustrated, I called my senators and told them I may never vote again. I also told them that the vote they save may be their own. Something needs to be done. Every time I get a request from the Democratic party for money, I say when the voting machines are fixed, I'll start donating again.
Who knows what the motivation for this is?

I just want to trust the outcomes-and I don't!!!!!
AUDIT!!!

Edit:
I haven't chosen a candidate yet, so I am not a Hillary or Obama voter.

[endarkenment]

106. Indeed. It is that simple.

And the fact that it is not done stinks.

[suziedemocrat]

96. I agree - we need to have CONFIDENCE in our elections!

Or else, we will have these arguments after every election. And who knows if they are true or not.

I think the burden of proof is on the election boards to prove their machines are accurate and unhackable. We shouldn't have to prove they are inaccurate and hackable, even though that is what we've had to do because the election people seem to have just read the brochures and called it a day.

I'm beginning to think what is wrong with this country is laziness! The election people are too lazy to research the machines they are buying. Reporters are too lazy to do investigative reporting anymore. They seem to just throw together a few quotes from well-connected sources they met at a cocktail party and wait for their Pulitzer. Democracy is WORK!!!! If we get lazy, we'll have a fascist regime and not even know it.

Edit to add -- I'm not saying the NH election was inaccurate, I'm saying we need to have confidence in the machines, or else we'll have this discussion after every election.

[eridani]

117. Yes, that's exactly what David Dill says

"It is not enough that elections BE accurate; we have to KNOW that they are accurate, and we don't."

[sendero]

100. I don't know whether there was chicanery or not...

... but of this I am certain. Whoever wins the Dem nomination better plan, organize and execute THEIR OWN exit polling in battleground states.

It's clear that the media is incapable of executing a valid poll, and if we don't do it ourselves we will never know what hit us.

Because while there is legitimate skepticism over this race, there are smoking guns on several in 2000 and 2004. And given the state of the country the ONLY way Republicans can win is through election fraud.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

102. One flaw in your argument. Just as we don't know what happened,

You can not say you know that the Republicans could have rigged it
without saying that the Democrats could have rigged it. You just
flat out don't know.

The more accurate statement is: We don't know if it was rigged or
not. And, if it was, we don't know by whom.

It is simply standard investigatory process:

1. Something happened in New Hampshire that defied probability.
2. Was everyone who voted eligible to vote? Was every vote counted accurately?
a. If no, what happened? If no, who had motive to alter the election? Who altered it?
b. If yes, Congratulations, Hillary!

[mirrera]

103. Well put! Hillary should re-count, the towns are small!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if she just hand counted some of the optical scan towns just to check the machines? It would make everyone feel so much more empowered, to know they worked right.

[NavyDavy]

105. i knew as soon as BO lost a primary there would be alot of

crying from OB supporters and anti-HRC people.....i don't support either but gosh dang this is flipping stupid.....infighting is whats going to destroy us in the GE IMHO

[Peggy Day]

110. It has nothing to do with OB (most of us are Democrats)

If I can't trust the results, and no one seems to get it, I won't be
voting in the GE.

Like I said before, I am neither a Obama or Clinton person, just someone that wants free and clean elections. I have been calling my reps since 2004 about the election process-just have random audits.

It would be so simple. Draw the names out of hat (or whatever-like jury duty does), then audit them. Is that so much to ask?
Is the Princeton study good enough for you? It is me.

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/princeton-university-reveals-how-gop.html

[Mark D.]

112. IOWA vs. NH

As a New Englander, let me give you some input on something not discussed in this debate on polls. Iowa is more rural, more right leaning than NH, they say, probably true. But the people who show up to vote in the Democratic Caucus are Democrats. If they are Democrats, will all do respect for the other New Englanders, they are REALLY Democrats (ie. really open about 'race'). If they support the candidate in the polls, they will in the vote. Let me explain this better. New England has a rep in America as a racially open minded place. And it is. Those who aren't, well, they conform to fit in.

If a pollster asks if they'll vote for Obama, they may say so, they may play that part then, when, even in a 'private' polling, someone asks them and they respond like they are used to. Showing a support for him, an openness about race, that's really not there. The white person who publicly shakes hands with a black 'friend' only to say 'I'm not racist, but we need to stay with our own kind' in private, at home, upon learning that person is in a relationship with a white person. You get the idea.

So it's been said and I only mention this as a possibility. That when folks got to the polls, the support for that 'change' candidate, eroded to their basic nature of not wanting to actually vote for a man who's 1/2 black. In the caucus, you showed your support in public, in your vote. You did not go behind a curtain or barrier nobody else can see over. There is no way to prove one walks their talk as you can in a caucus. Maybe as more caucus vs. private vote results come in, in the next states to vote, we'll see this trend. Trouble is, you can blame it on that, or you can also blame it on fraud in primaries, absent in caucus voting due to its nature.

I believe we need to go to optical scanning of all votes, with mandatory hand counting of those scans, in EVERY election, and every polling place, one system, nationally. No recounts usually needed, as every count will have a 'recount' (hand count) for more conclusive and worry free results. I highly doubt e-voting and Diabold is not to be trusted. So don't get me wrong, there very well may have been fraud, but this is still a possibility to consider. The two count solution I offer (and I've already mentioned it to Brad of Brad Blog) is the best way to prevent this doubt. There is time to implement this before November, but I doubt it will happen.

[carincross]

113. Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama

Chris Matthews reported on his show yesterday that raw exit polling data NBC was getting indicated an Obama victory. When exit data and vote totals don't agree, something has gone wrong with the election process.

For more on this read http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535.

Why do we discount or re-weight the exit polling data instead of mistrusting the vote totals? Other countries do the opposite. Significant discrepancies between exit polls and vote totals are signs of possible voting fraud.

[mistertrickster]

114. So, the Republican controlled Diebold upped the vote for Hillary because

they would rather run against Hillary than run against Obama?

Doesn't really make sense.

And you know what else--Hillary and Obama <b>got exactly the same number of delegates</b> in New Hampster.

If they were "throwing the election," they did a lousy job.

Pre-election polls are far different from <b>exit</b> polls. I have not seen the raw exit poll data, so I can't comment, but there're a lot of explanations for why the pre-polls didn't match the outcome--my pet theory is that "voters" were responding to the pollsters in favor Obama, but then as young people or never-before voters, they didn't actually turn out.

[althecat]

116. 95 Recs... Honouring this thread....

:kick:

[althecat]

118. ..

:kick: