BradBlog fears election fraud in Hillary win

[carincross]

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

NH Primary: Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama BradBlog (Brad Friedman)
"The pre-election pollster's numbers (NOTE: that's not Exit Polls, but Pre-Election Polls!) were dead-on, for the most part, on the Republican side, as well as on the Democratic side. Except in the do-or-die (for Hillary) Clinton v. Obama race. I'm watching MSNBC right now, and they all seem to agree that the results, for the moment, defy explanation."

"While I have no evidence at this time --- let me repeat, no evidence at this time --- of chicanery, what we do know is that chicanery, with this particular voting system, is not particularly difficult. Particularly when one private company --- and a less-than-respectable one at that, as I detailed in the previous post --- runs the entire process."

"I should also note that some 40% of New Hampshire's precincts are hand-counted, which equals about 25% of the votes. All the rest are counted on hackable Diebold op-scan systems, with completely hackable memory cards, all programmed and managed by LHS Associates. As Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org who seems to share my concern, says, LHS is the "chain of custody" in New Hampshire elections."

Brad Friedman notes that someone other than the Clinton Campaign could have "fixed" the election. In fact, Clinton internal polls showed Obama up by 11 points. In any case it's important that we get this right. As Mr. Friedman notes, the same suspects that surrounded the Kerry-Edwards exit poll data anomaly was in play here! We need clean elections in 2008.

[Demeter]

1. Surely It's Far Too Early in the Process To Pull a Fast One

and to think that HillaryCo could be that organized....I'd rather not go there, yet.

[Zueda]

16. Hillary Campaign not likely the culprit

as much as her establishment supporters.

[goldcanyonaz]

2. People in NH voted their conscience, they weren't bullied by the caucus process to switch sides.

Now, get the fuck over it.

President Hillary Clinton!

[DangerDave921]

8. Hey

In 2000 and 2004, all we heard was how accurate polling was, and how accurate exit polls were. And if the actual results didn't match, then there was fraud.

So now polls are not really that accurate?

[leftynyc]

12. The exit polls were right on the money

And they have always been considered more reliable than pre-election polls. The Obama supporters sound desperate.

[New Earth]

18. it's not Obama supporters

I'm not one, but I'm concerned, no matter who did what where and who is who.

[ccpup]

3. with 17% undecided and the under 30 vote --

a core Obama group who certainly helped Obama's Poll numbers -- not showing up like they did in Iowa, the final results are as off-the-mark as people want to believe. The CNN Exit Polls actually both had Hillary and Obama tied.

[wyldwolf]

4. once again, certain outposts on the left show why they aren't taken seriously

[Tarc]

5. Sure doesn't take long for the tinfoil to come out

The only thievery seen at this time is of Joe Lieberman's "Sore Loser" trophy by the Obamaniacs.

[LostinVA]

6. Bradblog needs to put down the soured grapes and admit HRC won

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Maybe he can get RFK Jr. to help with an investigation n/t

[Zueda]

17. That would be interseting...

A Clinton supporter who spoke out against election fraud in the 2004 election.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

22. Any updates from the blog?

I have my doubts about any manipulation but the problem is, the process clearly is not transparent and is inspiring an awful lot of doubt. That's indicative of a less-than-trustworthy process which, however you spin it, is bad for our democracy.

[Uben]

9. The young people did not turn out as expected

That's the difference. They are always unpredictable. They did in Iowa, and Obama won. Hillary spent time in NH courting the college voters, and it paid dividends.

[mcscajun]

10. Big News: Pre-Election Polls didn't match Exit Polls. So what?

It means some people did what they always do: they changed their minds in-between, in some cases IN the voting booth itself.

No film at 11.

[sunonmars]

11. I'm mad now

How fecking dare they suggest this. Do they not understand what sort of shit this leads too.

You are going to make Obama's campaign look very very bad if you keep this up not to mention you are doing a great diseervice to the democratic cause and all candidates.

Get a grip or take yourselves off out of this forum, sorry guys but this really is beyond a joke now.

[goldcanyonaz]

13. And, on a Democratic foum at that. Anything to bring Clinton down, Freeper style.

[mhatrw]

19. Why not support fully audited elections unless you want to cheat?

Why should any of us have blind faith in completely unverifiable election results? If you want to get mad, direct your anger appropriately.

[sunonmars]

20. Well lets talk Iowa

So if want to talk fiddling with votes and results how about certain supporters deliberately strategically voting for each other to skew results in the Iowa caucuses or republicans regestering as democrats in caucuses and open primaries to skew results or even Dennis Kuchinich on the eve of the caucus openly trying to shunt opinion to Obama, democratic and fair, then you are not playing nice but its what i call interfering. Let the dice lie where they fall.

There are lots of things that happen in elections but for you to suggest fraud from our own candidates is beyond reprehensible and should be shut down by all of us.

[Cameron27]

21. Lets talk Iowa,

how many students took Obama's suggesting and crossed over from Illinois, how many Republicans were trying to game the system? Maybe Iowa was the skewed vote and NH is the real deal. I agree with you, this talk of fraud is reprehensible.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

23. And necessary in a democratic system

Exacting demands of a vote-registering process are the lifeblood of a democracy with transparency. And skepticism about exit-poll results and paper-vs-computer ballots makes such concerns more than valid. I personally doubt that there was such manipulation, but the fact such doubt is so present about the Diebold-counted ballots, means we don't have a system that voters trust. It needs to be adjusted, for the sake of our democracy. (Which is also why a caucus as in Iowa is nice-- the votes are open and obvious, the ultimate standard in transparency.)

[BigDDem]

14. BigDDem fears tin foil shortage!

[flpoljunkie]

15. Undecided women voters broke to Hillary Clinton at the last minute. Let's move on!

[Prophet 451]

24. Maybe, maybe not

While I think Hillary's victory here was honest (or as honest as politics ever gets), it does raise the question of why we should trust any of the results, given the well-documented capacity for fraud the machines provide.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. and in 2004

people complained that Kerry stole the election from Dean.

Losers whine.