Countdown: New Hampshire Poll Nightmare - Was It The Polling Or The Reporting?
By Logan Murphy Tuesday Jan 08, 2008 9:02pm
Download | play 
Download | play
Keith Olbermann talked with Craig Crawford today on Countdown about the polling nightmare surrounding yesterday's New Hampshire Democratic primary. Crawford proposes that it wasn't the polls or the polling itself, it was the reporting and interpretation of them that led to the fiasco. The pundits got lazy and chose not to fully dig through the nuts and bolts of the numbers which resulted in highly skewed predictions.
In terms of the actual polling data, many of the polls hit the vote percentage for Obama very close to his actual tally. The one issue that was overlooked was the undecided vote -- the majority of which, went for Clinton. Add to that, Chris Matthews' three ring circus, FOXNews attacks and outright lies surrounding the New Hampshire primary and it made for the perfect storm...
Login or Register to post comments.
Yes, we can.
when I saw the name Craig Crawford....I thought Cindy............mmmmm......donuts.
What the hell? Who doesn't look at the undecided vote when analyzing poll data? I'm a 28-year-old newspaper editor and I know that.
it was neither polling nor the reporting. it was the vote counting.
Somebody on another thread said something that rang true with me.....KO has never awarded Worst Person dishonors on anyone from MSNBC....Tweety,Timmeh or Tucker surely would be good candidates......
*All the polls ....ASUME....the people polled are telling the truth when polled.
It was RACE stupid!
The reality in America is that there is still an anti-black vote lingering with enough of the electorate to make a difference. If New Hampshire had been an open caucus, as in Iowa, I'd bet the results would have matched to polls. But when people get behind that curtain, there are still 5-10% that will not vote for a candidate that they'll tell pollsters is acceptable: based strictly race.
Obama may be helping to reduce that %, but America just ain't quite there yet. Maybe by 2012.
As a black man , I can handle behind-the-curtain racism, but not hackable machines. At least the former is still the voter's choice.
Can we get paper ballot recounts?
Obama's total was right on with the polls. The Village Idiots simply did not do their jobs and interpret that there was still a sizeable chunk of undecideds. I would not comment at this time on whether the Diebold machines were hacked. But they ARE completely unreliable.
Maybe off topic, but Keith (my hero) owes Hillary an applogy along with everyone else in the MSM. They, as journalists, blew it. Brian Williams wrote an interesting essay on the subject. Posted on NBC.
They'll pull anything out of their asses just so they don't have to tackle the real issue here, Voter Fraud.
"The voters lied to us"
"The polls were wrong"
"The pundits were wrong"
"it was a racial thing"
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it"
I can tell you what happen with one word....
Diebold.
Ah, can't spell good (well). Sorry.
The polls are wrong because of possible fraud.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_widespread_fraud.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010908_not_counted.htm
Naw, the polling and the reporting were great.
It was the voting that fu*ked things up.
squiggs @ 12:
Shhhhhhhh.....now...that is just a conspiracy.....
Below is a link that shows Hilla(R)y did better, and Obama worse, on "E" machines compared to hand counts.
METHOD - HILLA(R)Y vs OBAMA, by %
E Machines: 39.6 - 36.3
Hand Count: 34.7 - 38.8
'Unknown': 45.3 - 30.6
In fact, EVERYONE BUT HILLA(R)Y lost votes to "E machines.
Hilla(R)y's "E" count was up 4.892% a total of 14,068 votes over hand counts. Obama's "E" count was down -2.497% a total of -7,181 votes, for a total differential of 21,249 votes, by this analysis. The "Actual" official vote count difference between Hilla(R)y and Obama, the "actual" margin of 'victory', was only 7,525!
Exit Polls, "THE METHOD" used around the world to verify the validity of 'Actual' counts, gets reversed in the USA. In Ame(R)ica, 'Actual' counts are used to verify or p(R)ove Exit Polls, it seems!
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
Snerd
I don't think there was anything off about the polling.
It was so obviously Hillary's puddle of crocodile tears that came over NH's women population.
Edwin @ 14:
DIE-BOLD. With a vengeance!
the economic nightmare about to strangle the US economy is another good reason
to [deleted]
Keith Olbermann should be ashamed of himself. I thought this man had some integrity but his mean and snide self came out of the woodwork once Clinton lost in Iowa. The legitimate points that both Bill and and Hillary raised about Obama in NH after Iowa were being ridiculed by Keith. What a shame? This is the man who only a couple of months ago was kissing the Clintons' ass to be able to interview them on his show.
But he isn't alone in this. Arianna Huffington is in the same league. This is a woman who has gotten this far only because she married up, way up and not just once. And she'll go around spreading the narrative that she is an immigrant from a middle class family in Greece. She is and she is smart too. So are many other women. But they are not where she is. And she goes around posing as a meritocratic progressive who dislikes connections and dynasties and what not when her own success in America is just because of that. Just look at her latest post on Hillary where she snidely refers to her husband as her ' running mate, Bill .' Her own writing and along with the sensational stories featured on her blog are quickly making Huffingtonpost into the Drudgereport of the left. And if one is to go by the comments on that blog then it's obvious that people are on to her.
BradBlog has quite a bit on this today:
http://www.bradblog.com/
Nobody is addressing the obvious red flags. I don't know what happened or didn't happened, but they used the Diebold machines which have been proven to be easily hackable. I don't care who wins as long as the person deserves to win, and won by a system that works. But, if the poll numbers were right on the money for all except one person (who got a pretty good bump), then we should be able to look at that and make sure there is no monkey business going on with our elections process. If we lose the integrity of our election process, then we lose our Democracy. Plain and simple.
Were the polls THAT far off? And for only one person? We as Americans have to be able to trust the system. It has already been demonstrated that these voting machines make the system very vulnerable. With the numbers being THAT far off, we should be able to look at the results and figure out why. With these machines, there is no way to check. No paper trail, and no looking in the machines themselves. Even worse, we have handed over our election process to private corporations that aren't accountable to our government or oversight. This is wrong.
dadams @ 20:
oops, wrong placement of comment--but still a good comment
Che's Lounge: "... I would not comment at this time on whether the Diebold machines were hacked. But they ARE completely unreliable."
SG: The problem with hacked Diebold is tow fold: One they are completely (R)e-Lie-able and two, there is no need to hack them, they are already (R)e-Lie-ably programmed to create (R)esults.
Snerd
Richardson dropping out?
polling? reporting? diebold? polling numbers on edwards were spot on. obama supporters changed withing hours after hillary's much advertised tear-up ... i believe it ...
Soft Stalinism/fascism
In other words, the undecided vote wasn't so undecided.
Why are the mainstream blogs ignoring the voting irregularities? Just because something IS a conspiracy doesn't mean you're nuts to believe it's a conspiracy.
Check the discrepancies between poll numbers for EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE (accurate) versus Clinton (drastically higher). Check the discrepancies between hand counted and Diebold districts. It's staring you in the face, people.
Whoever is pulling the strings wants Clinton nominated. Period.
In other words, the obsession to knock Hillary down was the main goal. Look, whether we like Hillary or not, many in the media will do anything to make her look bad. If she is to strong, she is cold. If she shows emotion, she is either weak or putting on an act. Chris Matthews and others on Faux News always portray her as a cold blooded bitch. In her White House days, the Right always put her down. Yet, Laura Bush is totally immune. I'm sure you all wil disagree. But, as a woman, I feel for her.
It's the Diebold, stupid.
Zeppyfish @ 29:
Thats ludicrous the last thing the Neocons want is to go up against the Clintons. The Clintons know how to beat them. They won't give the cons a pass this time.Their past is behind them and the neocons will look like total buffoons trying to invent new dirt on them.
Snerd Gronk @ 17:
Do yourself a favor and read up on multiple regression and covariates. Here's a little preview.
Correlations do not demonstrate causation. Just because there's a correlation between the method used and the results does not, by any means, demonstrate that the method caused the results.
Most of all, you need to look for covariates, which are other factors that are also correlated with the two events. For example (pulled out of my butt, so don't focus on this too much), it could be that the precincts with optical scanners are more wealthy than those using paper. It could also be the case that wealthy precincts have people in them who lean towards Clinton. Therefore, you end up with a correlation between optical scanning and Clinton, but it isn't causal; it's "spurious" (no relation with the Florida football coach, tee hee).
P.D. @ 30:
She put herself in that position, so I don't feel for her or anyone else that aspires to be the center of attention. And last time I checked, Laura Bush wasn't running for Prez saying she was experienced cuz she was in the WhiteHouse while GDubya was playing with CondiLapdog. Get a grip people. She may be a woman, but she's a rich, cut-throat callous politician. Period. It's just by sheer coinkydink that she is a she. If this was someone like Ann Coultergeist you Dems would be cheering.
JTM @ 33:
Our state gives you the choice of optical or paper at the polls. Isn't everyone doing this?
Che's Lounge @ 10:
WTF are you talking about.the Diebold machines worked perfectly in Ohio in 2004,at least they did what the owner said they would--they delivered Ohio to Bush.
NO TRUTH;NO HONOR
Diebold causes the polls to be wrong in some precincts...always. The number was also consistently 5000-6300 votes difference....for several hours. It looked very weird. Get rid of the damned machines.
the neocons are going to be too busy fighting indictments to smear the clintons.
ConcernedCanuck @ 34:
Thats a little bit of a stretch.
JTM @ 33:
Let me see if I can interpret that...
Blah blah blah.
Bullshit.
The End.
Close?
kasinca @ 37:
Did the possibility that early-morning voters will break one way, while those from the rest of the day will be balanced occur to you?
Look for correlates! It might save you a lot of money. Rolls of tinfoil are expensive these days.
I'm serious. The neocons know the Clintons can beat them. And by a substantial margin. How much more proof does one need then the Hillary hysteria going on. The Clintons can pulverize the cons and rove this election.
squiggs @ 40:
Nope. It's more like: (1) stick fingers in ears; (2) start singing.
I'm sorry if statistics are complicated.
L.A. Confidential @ 42:
Why do you think the NeoCons are any different than the Clintons? Is Bush a NeoCon? His dad is good friends with Bill. They have the same financial backers. Heck or Rupert Murdick himself luvs him some Hillary.
JTM @ 43:
These numbers don't look to complicated to me....
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
We need to count the paper ballots rather than depend on Diebold machines.
Hillary was using Al Qaeda and war to startle the voters similar tactics of Bush.
We have a serious problem in our election process.
mudshark @ 5:
Keith did one on himself.
ConcernedCanuck @ 44:
Bush Sr. can buddy up to Bill and follow him around with a nervous look all he wants. Whens the last time you saw the Clintons Schmoozing up to Kristal? Perle? Newt? Rush?
Murdoch? He can pay the Clintons whatever he wants to keep them off his back but it's not up to the President to prosecute. It's up to who ever is empowered by the Democratic Presidency to do that.
Jeff @ 9:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_080109_new_hampshire_el...
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Mitt Romney, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 33.075%
Romney, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 25.483%
Ron Paul, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 7.109%
Paul, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 9.221%
squiggs @ 40:
WTF you guys doon? C&L is a joint where you post, not think!
Everyone is missing a very basic fact. The poll is a statistical sample, not the vote.
check out clinton and obama's top contributers, they're pretty much the same with goldman-sacks topping the list for both.
JTM (Jump To Malicious): "... Do yourself a favor and read up on multiple regression and covariates. Here’s a little preview. Correlations do not demonstrate causation.
SG: Where did I say Causative, Mr Assumptive!?
JTM (Jump To Malicious): "... pulled out of my butt, so don’t focus on this too much ..."
SG: Apparently ... Must have been a 'personal covariate'.
However, in the correlation between discrepant 'Actual' Counts to Exit Polls, why is it in the rest of the world, Exit Polls are used to verify legitimacy, while in the USA, 'Actual' counts are used to verify Exit Polls? I don't want to 'cause' you to bust a butt, with that 'observation' ....
Snerd
squiggs @ 45:
Did you notice the correlation between town size and the percentage for Clinton? [If not, please go and look again. I'll wait here. Take your time.] As town size increases from small to large, Clinton's percentage goes from low-30s to 40.
OK. Now the part that you might have trouble following. If town size is correlated with method of voting (e.g., large towns have optical scanners; small town use paper), then everything that is being suggested to have been caused by the method of voting might actually have been caused by the size of the town, instead. Method, in this case, would be spurious. Town size would be the causal factor.
Note: if the data were reported more completely, we could do the necessary hierarchical regressions to test for this.
JhimJHim @ 21:
Today they started reformatting so you can't double space(which is much easier to read.)
I blame Tweety and Dan Abrams for enabling him
Or perhaps it was fraud? Hmmmmmmm?
It's funny that the phenomenon of exit polls being consistently wrong when compared to "actual" votes started with bush/kerry.
And continued on.
Funnily enough, that is when the Diebold machines (ACCUVOTE optical scanners used in NH are Diebold) took over...
Nope its juuuuust a coinky dink....
Nr 15 post is a classic:
"Naw, the polling and the reporting were great.
It was the voting that fu*ked things up."
:-)
Snerd Gronk @ 53:
It wasn't easy, but I think I get what you're trying to say. The answer is that exit polls are the best way to verify elections. In general, people are much more accurate in reporting what they have done in the past (especially the immediate past) than they are in predicting their future behaviors. That's why exits are used. In fact, there's nothing better available.
If you lighten up, then your next question ought to be: so tell me, what sorts of thing make exits inaccurate? After all, you'd have to be an idiot (or a resident of Florida) to not know who you just voted for, less than a minute ago.
There are two things that I know of that make exit polls inaccurate. The first is fear, such as when there are intimidators hanging around in front of the polling place. I'm going to ignore this one for New Hampshire in 2008. The second has a variety of names in psychology but it all comes down to one thing: the voter lies about who they voted for in order to look good to the person who asked. In the case of pre-election polling, this is the Bradley Effect. The same sort of thing can happen afterwards, too.
americangoy @ 57:
Live Free or
Die Bold!
Reporting a poll number is not reporting.
It's rip and reading.
We no longer have media people who care about digging. They care about their doorman buildings and hair gel much much more. If there were no power to run their search engines, would any of them even have a clue where to start looking. Or how to build a story without a word processor?
Zeppyfish @ 29:
I would like to know a valid reason why they can't be audited.
#42 You are very wrong. The Neoncons are hoping and praying that we put Hillary in as the nominee. Nothing motivates the Republican base to go and vote against her is Hillary Clinton. Trust me. I have a lot of Republican friends. They are hoping and praying she gets to be the nominee, so she can be defeated. If the Dems give her the nomination, I'm writing in Mickie Mouse. I think she is a nice person, I do not think she has earned my vote. Sorry.
I watched an important documentary last night called "Uncounted - the new math of American elections". Funny that the night I chose to watch it the was controversy surrounding an election.. I would encourage people to watch it (as well as "Hacking Democracy"). These two documentaries as well as a number of books written over the last 7 years illustrate how the process is in jeopardy. It is our voting process that counts here. It is at risk. I still don't have a favorite candidate, and this isn't sour grapes. This is about protecting the integrity of our voting system, and our democracy.
If we can't trust or elections, we don't have a democracy.
Statistics lesson:
35% + or - 5% means that there is a certain probability that the thing your trying to guess at is actually within that range. That probability is usually 95%. That means that 5% of the time, your poll is absolutely completely and 100% telling you the wrong thing.
Now what I just pointed out doesn't take into account any bias in the polling (think coin flips instead of asking people whether they plan to vote in three weeks). That kind of bias can also lead to an incorrect result.
The media spouts out polls and rarely tries to explain what they mean. If they do give a P-value for the poll, they usually hide it somewhere. Who knows, maybe they just make it up. But one thing we can count on. If there is a poll out there, the media will 100% of the time misrepresent what it's saying. The only thing a poll says precisely is what the data tells you. IE 500 people said this, 500 people said that, etc. The extrapolation of that data is NOT THE POLL. That is where you make the assumption that your small sample is representative of the whole population. And gee, guess what? That's a really hard assumption to validate most of the time.
Its not to say that polling has no value, but you always need to be aware that what you're looking at has a significant probability of being absolutely wrong.
My guess with NH is simply that the polling was all done when the temperature was <20 degrees and polling day was balmy.
Anyway, I have no faith that our media will ever know what is in the polls they spew at us. They just think the people are too stupid to understand and most of them couldn't explain it if they tried.
mudshark @ 5:
he once gave himself the dishonor of being on that list.
P.D. @ 30:
Nobody gives Laura Bush a hard time because she never says anything.
What is the big deal? Why is the media blaming white people? Calling them liars. The media didn't ask everyone that voted their opinion so FI. It's a poll, not a horse race. Beside, polls with an 3%+ error rate are bs. I have seen one as high as 7%.
It was close (in NH) and who the hell cares what the media says? It doesn't faze me.
It sounds as if the media lost a bet.
What's the big deal? If one of the top two dems lost by more of a margin then that could be news. Or if looney paul got double digits that would be a miracle (HAHAHAHAHAHA) but definitely news. But this bs day in and day out is daunting.
Mr. Obama should be proud that the numbers were so close. Sen. Clinton should be proud also.
Are the media gonna grace us with a play-by-play color for all 50 states?
I'm getting a headache.
What a joke.
squiggs @ 12:
Diebold and the vote counter decide who wins. You know it flawed when the repugs won twice.
JTM: It wasn’t easy, but I think I get what you’re trying to say.
SG: Apology accepted
JTM: The answer is that exit polls are the best way to verify elections. In general, people are much more accurate in reporting what they have done in the past (especially the immediate past) than they are in predicting their future behaviors. That’s why exits are used. In fact, there’s nothing better available.
SG: "The Answer ... "!? How about 'An explanation ...?' It might 'cause' you less trouble.
JTM: If you lighten up ....
SG: Yes, I really ought ta get sum of that pedantic goin' ...
JTM: There are two things that I know of that make exit polls inaccurate.
SG: ... a third might be fraud ... No!?
The question I've been asking (apparently unsuccessfully, in spite of your efforts), at least somewhat rhetorically is, 'Why is it that in the USA, discrepancy between 'actual' counts vs Exit Polls, are adjudicated in favour of the 'actual'? whereas in the rest of the world, Exit Polls are used to adjudicate 'official' results?
Snerd
You bunch of sorry losers, its the machines its racism its blah blah blah its the crying. Maybe the people that voted for clinton saw throuh all the bullshit like you supposedly liberal clinton haters and the hateful media. Americans need to see what substance the second coming of christ has besides trying to sound like MLK and JFK. HE IS NO MLK OR JFK.
There was a dress rehearsal of this disgrace. It was when Hillary hand carried bagels and coffee onto the press buss and they snubbed her to her face and then said nasty things to her behind her back. Then they jointly sent out a truthful version of the story, but somehow coming to the conclusion that Hillary is a cold fish. On the news shows I heard people justifying Hillary "behavior to the press" because she has been so ill treated by them (which is true) but no where did I hear the response common sense should have dictated - what is a cold fish doing hand delivering bagels and coffee to reporters she hates and who do that bunch of pukes who manage to exist without an independent bone in their bodies think they are treating her so rudely and calling her a cold fish.
Monday and Tuesday was just more of the same only writ large. And this time even they had to see it.
tHeGaMeOfLiFe-Abdicated: What’s the big deal? If one of the top two dems lost by more of a margin then that could be news.
SG: I'm with you there 'GaMeO', if the possibility of vote rigging doesn't exceed a significant margin, what's there to complain about? ... You got my vote, bub. Count on it!
Snerd
And I forgot to add that I think this was a deliberate attempt to interfere with a national election. Perhaps a conspiracy and it should be investigated. Look at the honest and good men they have been able to mess with: Dean, Gore, Kerry, Cleland, yes and even Bill Clinton.
Sany @ 63:
No need to be sorry. I think your wrong. I truly believe the Clintons can DEFEAT the Rove machine.
By substantial margin. They defeated the cons twice The cons were so panicked by 2000 they literally had to the election with the from Gore to avoid the dustbin of history.
It's going to get ugly that's a given.
NCTL (Not Close To Lucid): You bunch of sorry losers, its the machines its racism its blah blah blah
SG: Ah yes! Sometimes you can just feel a 'winning' response coming ...
NCTL (Not Close To Lucid): HE IS NO MLK OR JFK.
SG: Nice 'shot' ... Your point is all the 'rage', I see.
Snerd
Betty @ 72:
What has always interested me about the MSM response to Hillary is, she gets the Starr chamber treatement from the (R)ovo-Cons for years, get attacked by them for years for killing Vince, having affairs, being a lesbian, being a cold fish, etc., and the MSM give voice to it all, and then the MSM describe her as 'polarizing'!
Snerd
adambnyc @ 51:
And the fact of the matter, every poll has a margin of error of 3-5% Given ~17% undecided in the final polls and Billary's great weekend, it's not hard to see how this could happen.
Please read this... there is no current Edwards articles sorry for this not relating to the above article!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-chamber8jan08,0,4301350.story...
Jeff @ 4:
BINGO!
Talcott (#49) offered this:
The numbers, as you have presented them, are misleading. These aren't the same votes counted in two different ways. They are two separate sets of votes, taken from different polling sites, some that used machines and some that used paper. The total number of paper ballots counted was about a quarter of the number counted by machine. Your percentages don't show that which helps to lead to false perceptions. As has been suggested, there may be other factors here, similarities shared between paper sites vs. machine sites which may well explain the percentage differences you gave here. The original source (did you check that?) further breaks the information down into small, medium, and large towns and the pattern you offer here, though also apparent in the small and medium town, completely reverses itself in large towns. There is something interesting going on here, but it may be nothing more that demographics, not deception.
Good grief, now that I take a closer look at that source of Talcott's numbers (in #49), whomever produced the statistics in there wouldn't have passed an intro level stats course. The comparisons he/she tries to pull off (e.g., machine vs. hand to determine "lost" or "won" votes???) are beyond belief. Its also a blatant "Support Ron Paul" site, so I guess the "stats" are supposed to work in Paul's favor?
Thats ludicrous the last thing the Neocons want is to go up against the Clintons. The Clintons know how to beat them. They won't give the cons a pass this time.Their past is behind them and the neocons will look like total buffoons trying to invent new dirt on them.
ENOUGH THEY ARE NOT AFRAID OF HER THEY FEAR NO DEMOCRATS THANKS TO PELOSI AND REID. IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE TO SHAKE THEM UP BY VOTING AS MANY AS POSSIABLE OUT OF OFFICE.
None of this adds up. None of it. We require publicly traded companies to be audited and give account for every penny spent. . . why can't we do the same for accounting for every vote? So much more is at stake.
Speaking as a NH primary voter and to the issue brought up (and appropriately dismissed) in Olbermann's report on whether racism was a factor in the polls being wrong about Barack vs Hillary -- Keith is right that it wasn't racism but just undecideds/independents making up their minds at the last minute. The few neighbors I have who are racist would (1) never have told a pollster they would vote for Barack, (2) never vote for a woman, (3) never vote for any member of the Clinton family, and (4) never vote for any Democrat. The racists weren't a significant factor in the NH Democratic primary.
The 4th estate is trying to decide the next president. Big fucking surprise.
new Hampshire needs to do a hand recount of the paper ballots that went into the optical machines to ensure they where not hacked.
The fraud is so transparent.
These guys don't give a fuck.
People will protest and spend a bunch of time on their computers but will anything change ?, probably not, not until a few thousand patriots march up to the White House and Impeach the entire executive branch and send a clear message that enough is enough. Keep killing the middle class and this might become a reality. If people have nothing to lose but credit card debt they might just get pissed off enough.
Imagine how much better off the nation and the planet would be if the worse thing Bush had done in office was to get sucked off ?
Do Americans care enough about their country ?
You'd think after the fuck ups in Florida that the entire voting system would be overhauled ? unless of course it's working perfectly.
Pretty obvious isn't it ?
.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO SEE KEITH ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH THE ELECTRONIC VOTE MACHINES.
.
no, it was the fraud actually...
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php
recommend everyone view this..
another perfect storm.
oh well, on with the cornonation...
first off.... let me say im as conspiracy kookish as anyone else. i truly dont believe the governments account of 911.... and i dont believe that lee harvey oswald was a LONE gunman.......but if there were going to be vote fraud......... dont you think that it would be done by oh.... i dont know..... the right wing establishment that controls the machines?? and truth be told... i dont think they want hillary. i could be speaking out of turn here.... but with an almost sure democrat win... dont you think they would be focusing their dastardly manipulative machinations on races that HELP THEM??? like possibly electing MIKE HUCKABEE... the next jesus candidate. i just cant see how helping hillary beat obama, helps the people who own the machines or control them...
i think you all should put your conspiracy kook glasses and tin foil hats away until the BIG DANCE NEXT NOVEMBER..... where the right wing would have something to gain from tainting the vote count...
now i know... there are people who will say... this guy doesnt understand.... hillary is ONE of the people... she is in DISGUISE.......... she is a RIGHT WING DOUBLE AGENT WHO SECRETLY WANTS TO JOIN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO 1984 THE WORLD.
i have to tell you.. i dont think so.
Max-1 @ 89:
keith did... he said something like this.. AND FOR THE CONSPIRACY NUTS, IT TURNS OUT THE PAPER BALLOTS MATCH UP WITH A 3% ABOVE VOTE FOR HILLARY. IT WAS CONSISTANT ACROSS THE BOARD.....SO THAT DISPROVES ANY VOTER TAMPERING.
I wonder sometimes if the "conspiracy" people arent ACTUALLY people from the other side who want to whip up the nut shell populace and muddy the waters.
i do believe a great number of the conspiracy KOOKS .... the over the edgers........ are ron paul supporters..... he would be a motherfucking disaster.
A word to the wise. People (and I mean important, really rich, people) are investing serious cash in the new Diebold subsidiary, due for an IPO next month. The name of the company, subject to SEC approval, is Paper Ballot Modification and Tampering Provisions, UnLtd.
Apparently Diebold, which also supplies the 'One Time Only' pads used by the CIA for their spies when circumstances warrant avoiding the insecure electronic communication devices while transmitting messages, has devised a fool proof method of creating final images on paper sheets that are pre-programmed into the molecular structure of the paper, at a nano-level, in order that any written matter on the sheets will be negated and replaced by the programmed message.
'Especially useful for voting ballots in areas where the anticipated voter outcome is uncertain', according to the Diebold/PBMTB, unLtd., brochure.
"It’s not who votes that counts it’s who counts the votes!" Joseph Stalin
Pre election polls showed Obama Leading Clinton by double digits! Go figure!
They used Diebold machines in NH...... No paper record!.....Easily hacked!
Ron Paul is another good example of confusing results. The numbers don't add up, Paul wins straw poll after straw poll, he wins hack-proof online polls on Faux, MSNBC, AOL and others. He also gets unprecedented donations and still he gets wiped out by the Diebold machines. Blackboxvoting.org shows how this is done.
It is time to go back to the old, time tested, small polling precincts, with a hand count of the results, signed off and sworn to under the penalty of perjury by a small number of people. If this were done at each stage of the count, the actual ballots would be handled by a very small number of people at the precinct, so fraud would be easily detected and would be for a small number of votes. This is one small, but very important, way that We the People can take our country back.
Squiggs@12
I think you mean Election Fraud. Voter fraud is fraud committed by a voter, like Ann Coulter.
www.bradblog.com/?p=5415
- Tom
Now the newbies over at DU are saying Chris Matthews is the AUTHORITY on voter fraud and Hillary Clinton rigged the machines to win. That is one hate for Hillary place. They are calling all the people who didn't vote for Obama, racist. So do we have this now that if you are white and don't vote for Obama you are racist. That Hillary Clinton is so powerful that she can get people to hack the machines and let the republican votes go thru, the Independent votes go thru but screw up only the Democrat votes so she wins. Why didn't she have a landslide. Why doesn't she in her all powerful position declare herself the winner and forgo all the campaigns, and primaries...you know Chris Matthews is being used at the authority, by another website that I really thought was honest.
Jeff @ 4:
Yes !! Computer voting again. Check Blackboxvoting.org for the details.
The Repugs cannot steal another election so the best thing to do is push a Repug lite to the forefront.
Hillary did not Win NH
squiggs @ 12:
Spot on!
L.A. Confidential @ 32:
You keep playing this game thinking that the powers that be care whether a Democrat or a Republican gets into the White House, when it is obvious from what happenned when the Dems took over Congress in 2006 that they just continued the same policies however much they claimed they were for change. Whoever wins has the blessing of the established political oligarcy, otherwise they wouldn't win. Period. The diebold machines are there to ensure that outcome. In my mind as well, Hillary is just Bush in a woman's body, and as evidence of that, look at how many of Bush's policies she has voted to support.
Look, as Democrats, in 2004 you had Ohio stolen from John Kerry -- one of the two Skull and Bones men running for president last time, how many candidates for president were there? -- and that election should be burned in your mind for a few reasons. Number one: the powers that be don't mind stealing elections in the most blatant way. Number Two: They will ensure that whoever they choose will carry out their policies, ie continued shrinking of our civil liberties, continued rollout of the police state, continued unending war. Number Three: They don't give a damn about you, none of them, they know they are just a face to a whole other layer of government that many are not aware of and that is not accountable to any of us. However, by giving us the illusion of choice it serves to justify the immoral and illegal policies being enacted: "The American people have spoken!"
I don't buy the whole New Hampshireites are racist angle either because Obama's numbers were pretty close to what was predicted, so where did all the votes from Hillary -- 14 points worth!! -- come from. Oh, I forgot. Richardson looks native.
Adlous (mis) Huxley commented that the perfect dictatorship would be one where not only was the population enslaved, but that the slaves would love their servitude. By so glibly accepting the mainstream media's stories about why the polls were so for off without at least considering the possibility of fraud, you are acting like slaves concerned about offending your masters. It is sad to think America -- once the most prosperous nation in the world -- has been so corrupted.
And it seems like some people here don't mind voting fraud as long as their person gets in. That attitude will kill what's left of this country faster than any neocon ever could. If you don't have elections you can trust, then everything else is just a Wizard of Oz magic show. It really breaks my heart.
Diebold?!!?!
What lost NH for Obama was the anti-Hillary insanity. Beyond pulling your hair and tearing your clothes, you might think about how your own vitriol contributed to a Hillary victory.
L.A. Confidential @ 32:
I'm sure Diebold loves money, no matter where it comes from. In
the endNovember they're going to fix it in favor of the neo-cons anyway. Just you wait and see.Why would the Neo-cons want Hillary? Hillary is a hedge on their bets because they know they might not win the general election. Their second choice is the Goldman/Sachs, Defense Contractor, Insurance Company, Blackwater, AIPAC second best, after any Republican front runner. The Clintons have been compromised since Arkansas.
Look at the psychology of this. The people who are explaining the discrepancy in the polls and the outcome are searching for any reason to continue to believe in the election system.
It was: Obama couldn’t win because he is black.
The independents switched to McCain because Obama was a sure thing.
Women were angry at Chris Mathew’s sexism.
Liberals were angry at the sexism of the media’s attack on Hillary’s crying.
The Polls are fraudulent and being manipulated by the media.
Polls are never correct.
You are grasping at straws because you want to believe that we still have a legitimate democracy. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy like evangelicals believing in Noah’s Ark.
If a bank safe (voting machine) full of money is open (easy to hack) to greedy criminals (ambitious politicians) than don’t we have a right to question whether the money was stolen.
Polls are used throughout the world to spot election fraud. If Clinton continues to win in the Diebold Districts you need to ask yourself at what point will you question your belief in the system. If it happens again in Michigan? Super Tuesday? For many people on this blog the clear answer is NEVER.
David @ 101:
THANK YOU! You said it all ... people that think Clinton won because of "anti-hillary insanity" ! is laughable
...Prediction ... Clinton will be our new illegitimate president ... thanks to the secret ballot counting ... caging ... easily crackable machines ... the corporations are choosing our reps ... not "we the people"
Sany @ 63:
Which is why they are rigging the primaries for her.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
I use Diebold ATM machines and they never lose track of the money
It's beginning to look as if voter fraud on the part of the Clintons was involved, these were Diebold machines.
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71200.html?1199904311
Still What happened!
As I watched Morning Joe this morning still trying to find out what what wrong with the polls it dawned on me. Barack had speeches with 1500 people at then Monday perhaps they didn't like his message! Maybe they thought he couldn't deliver on his comparison to JFK he likes to make. Perhaps they "after seeing him speak " decided he was a bag of wind and in no way could he deliver on this dream he is living. The voters of New Hampshire decided he like most all politicians, was trying to sell them a bunch of "lies"
"fairy tails""dreams" or Band Instruments for a Grand Parade" just to get elected. How about that as an explanation.
rick bensco @ 109:
How about that as an explanation?
How about this: "Lame, lame, lame."
If your assumption is correct, than Obama's numbers should have significanly dropped.
Barak got very close to what he was polled at, it just so happens that Hillary did 14 points better than was anticipated. Where did those votes come from if not Obama. (Maybe they came from candidate Diebold?)
Wake the hell up and start thinking critically before they chip what's left of your brain and start feeding you more directly what they want you to think.
Mind you, in your specific case, they seem to have you chipped already.
GoodGod @ 7:
Everyone who believes that Diebold is legitimate suddenly becomes an expert at understanding the voters.
GoodGod @ 7:
Interesting idea, but does not explain the exit polls. Wouldn't you expect less votes for Obama than what the exit polls show if people lied about voting for Obama?
As Josh Marshall pointed out, Obama's actual vote tally was within the margin of error (+/- 3%). All the exit polls pegged his number. Clinton's vote tally is double digits greater than her exit poll numbers. Meanwhile, most of the remaining candidates got less votes than the exit polls showed, greater than the margin of error.
A comparison of results from the precincts with Diebold Accuvote optical counters and those that were hand counted and verified, shows the hand counts corresponded to the exit polls and the Accuvote optical counts corresponding to the vote tallies reported.
Exit polling was instituted as a check of the accuracy of the voting, not to get early results.
Diebold Accuvote optical scanners are the easily hackable scanners that were hacked in Florida in 2000. They are proven to be easily tampered with. Watch Hacking Democracy on youtube. You'll see a Florida Accuvote counter actually hacked as well as testimony under oath from the hacker. NH has the exact same ones that have not been secured.
Hand counting the ballots would put this issue to rest.
Na, don't do any study on voter fraud. It means you actually have to think, you actually have to be confronted by real issues that might make you uncomfortable, and in the end it might make you look less favorably on your chosen messanic candidate.
Besides, critical thinking requires work, which Americans have either forgotten how to do or been displaced from by the globalist corporations.
As pointed out on CrooksandLiars last night, we are going to be decending in a real economic decline, and without real leadership, this country is in big trouble. But leadership can't operate in this country without a populace worthy of that leadership. I don't see that populace, do you?
Just keep clinging to your baseless ideas of blaming the people for the failings in the system. Lenin would describe you as the useful idiots that allow the regime to continue operating.
squiggs @ 40:
That's really adult; the guy was trying to explain another point to you.
You're reaction:
you chose conspiracy and heresy to logic.
I was hoping liberals were smarter than that.
ConcernedCanuck @ 44:
Why do you think Obama is different than Hillary?
Their voting records are identical.
As I watched Morning Joe this morning still trying to find out what what wrong with the polls it dawned on me. Barack had speeches with 1500 people at then Monday perhaps they didn't like his message! Maybe they thought he couldn't deliver on his comparison to JFK he likes to make. Perhaps they "after seeing him speak " decided he was a bag of wind and in no way could he deliver on this dream he is living. The voters of New Hampshire decided he like most all politicians, was trying to sell them a bunch of "lies"
"fairy tails""dreams" or Band Instruments for a Grand Parade" just to get elected. How about that as an explanation.
How about that as an explanation?
How about this: "Lame, lame, lame."
If your assumption is correct, than Obama's numbers should have significanly dropped.
Barak got very close to what he was polled at, it just so happens that Hillary did 14 points better than was anticipated. Where did those votes come from if not Obama. (Maybe they came from candidate Diebold?)
Wake the hell up and start thinking critically before they chip what's left of your brain and start feeding you more directly what they want you to think.
Mind you, in your specific case, they seem to have you chipped already.
They came from independents who 34% didn't know whom they were voting for THAT DAY.
My God conspiracy theorists...
LCR @ 81:
Forget it...these people want blood and conspiracy, not rational thought.
Josh @ 117:
How about that as an explanation?
How about this: "Lame, lame, lame."
If your assumption is correct, than Obama's numbers should have significanly dropped.
Barak got very close to what he was polled at, it just so happens that Hillary did 14 points better than was anticipated. Where did those votes come from if not Obama. (Maybe they came from candidate Diebold?)
Wake the hell up and start thinking critically before they chip what's left of your brain and start feeding you more directly what they want you to think.
Mind you, in your specific case, they seem to have you chipped already.
They came from independents who 34% didn't know whom they were voting for THAT DAY.
My God conspiracy theorists...
I know, you're right, nothing to be concerned about here, what was I thinking?
There has been a substantial amount of voter fraud already uncovered in New Hampshire against Dr. Paul: townships declaring no votes for Dr. Paul and then, when people who voted for him come forward, all of a sudden he has 31 in that one township and they says "Whoops, sorry, human error." This has been uncovered twice already, there have been numerous unexplained discrepencies in what was reported by the press and the final outcome. (see below) and I am seriously praying Dr. Paul will spend the almost $70,000 to do a recount, this is such a central issue. If you can't trust the results, you don't have a functioning democracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8xgWjFe1cE
And dems have had elections stolen from them before, so you think they would be sensitive to this issue. But like I say, if it's their gal the election is stolen for, I guess some people are OK with that.
To get the real story, check out www.bradblog.com and read the stories of how Diebold machines are at it again. In other words, they want the Status quo to stick around. Don't forget Hillary has taken money from Rupert Murdoch. Why?
That's a red flag right there. If this keeps up, don't be surprise there's a Diebold machine in your neighborhood.
adambnyc @ 51:
True, but hopefully the poll is an accurate representation of what the vote will yield. The assumption at work with the polls as projection tools is that "no discrepancy exists between the poll numbers and the caucus votes". Of course, if you don't have that much polling data, then you might get some inaccuracies just based on chance, but that error should decrease as you obtain more data. There was polling data coming in and out of every corner: certainly a large enough sample size to suggest that a poll vs. vote discrepancy of that magnitude was statistically significant. So the question is, "why is there a discrepancy"? That requires a thorough investigation of the undecided vote, and there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons why this may have occurred. But it needs to be investigated nonetheless.
From the latest at www.bradblog.com:
Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least.
Dennis Kucinich has officially requested a recount! GO DENNIS!!!
Login or Register to post comments.