Have we absolutely ruled out vote fraud on this case?

Ours if Februrary 5th, but by then the nomination may be a foregone conclusion.

What polls?

Or are you referring to the MSM's 'prediction' ala Kreskin?

In a general poll regarding democratic candidates - large portions of votes cast for both O'Bama and Edwards were anti-Clinton votes. Under those circumstances, its clear that there were more anti-Clinton votes cast than pro-Clinton votes.

Really, this is about the confluence of the MSM's face and egg. Nothing more.

billw, I made this point on a thread below, and would like to make it one more time, as it's actually more relevent to your thread:

When you have this many different polls all showing the same exact thing leading up to the election, and when we have a state with 81 per cent Diebold machines, which are clearly easily hacked, as seen in the HBO special, and when you have Senator Clinton ready to concede Nevada and South Carolina just two days ago, and when you have high young turnout (who overwhelmingly favor Obama) and then, on election day, the Democratic candidate favored by Rupert Murdoch and his corporate friends “miraculously” eeks out a victory, it’s probably time for Robert Mueller to launch an FBI investigation.

I'm just hoping it's still a horse race by Feb. 5. If so, it will be the first time in my voting life (and I'm in late middle age) that the nomination will NOT have been decided before I get to vote.

Other political pundits have even another explanation. With N.Hampshire comprised of
45 percent "Independents"(a very, very large number when compared to other States)
it is being surmised that many of them-there independents(tho perhaps favoring Obama)
voted for McCain on the Repub. side of the aisle, feeling that Obama was a shooo-in
and that McCain needed to come out on top in their State instead of either Romney
or Huckabee. Not saying it has any basis, but that's another prespective. Only interviewing the Independent voters will give us an answer.

Well whatever the reason it's over now and I'm ready to move on. I don't think there are that many people in NH who would allow the "Bradley effect" inside the voting booth with them. I think we should pay attention to our favorite candidate, help them where we can and ignore the shit out of the talking heads on tv who don't know a damned bit more about the future outcome of any election than we do.

the exit polls matched the results so I'd say these elections were on the level. I'd sya poor preelection polls were to blame. Or was the MSN lying about the preelection polls to influncence

Hail to the Chimp @ 9:

It was probably multiple reasons. But prior to Iowa, Barack was supposed to have lost anyways. He actually closed the gap. Glad that Barack is not using the race card - can't say that about Hillary and her constantly using the Gender card.

Anyone notice the difference between Obama's concession speech yesterday and Hillary's last week. She blamed and dismissed Iowa voters. Obama did not

I did notice that Barack didn't cry. Good. The president shouldn't cry, as surely as there's no crying in baseball.

Polls really show only trends and relationships, not necessarily concrete data.

But the MSM hates vagaries and look for stories, that are inevitably wrong, but like boosh, they blame the intelligence.

Emmit @ 17:

Hail to the Chimp @ 9:

It was probably multiple reasons. But prior to Iowa, Barack was supposed to have lost anyways. He actually closed the gap. Glad that Barack is not using the race card - can't say that about Hillary and her constantly using the Gender card.

Anyone notice the difference between Obama's concession speech yesterday and Hillary's last week. She blamed and dismissed Iowa voters. Obama did not

I did notice that Barack didn't cry. Good. The president shouldn't cry, as surely as there's no crying in baseball.

Yoda didn't cry, even after all the Jedi were wiped out. He needed to hold it together.

Obviously, Yoda's a movie character, but my point is that the President shouldn't publicly cry, he needs to hold it together for America.

sassafra @ 14:

i'd be willing to bet that people lied to the media and pollsters just because they could screw with them.
no other reason.

Good one and a great idea. Think I'll use if ever polled. I feel obligated to screw with
the MSM every opportunity presented. They are mostly ALL sleeze bags.

VOT-ER FRAUD!

Come on?

Can't we just raise the idea?

It's so obvious. Is it not important?

I believe the media said We the people LIE> and I believe the machines are rigged.

23 Doggiebobo

I remember back in 1988 getting phone polls on the Bush/Dukakis election. One asked me if I was a Republican or a Democrat, and I answered I was a cynic. Another asked me if the election were held tommorrow would I vote for Bush or Dukakis, I answered Pee Wee Herman. And another I remember asked me if I was a liberal or a conservative, and I answered conservative, I believe in the Divine Right of kings.

Emmit @ 21:

Emmit @ 17:

Hail to the Chimp @ 9:

It was probably multiple reasons. But prior to Iowa, Barack was supposed to have lost anyways. He actually closed the gap. Glad that Barack is not using the race card - can't say that about Hillary and her constantly using the Gender card.

Anyone notice the difference between Obama's concession speech yesterday and Hillary's last week. She blamed and dismissed Iowa voters. Obama did not

I did notice that Barack didn't cry. Good. The president shouldn't cry, as surely as there's no crying in baseball.

Yoda didn't cry, even after all the Jedi were wiped out. He needed to hold it together.

Obviously, Yoda's a movie character, but my point is that the President shouldn't publicly cry, he needs to hold it together for America.

Oh good god. What the president should not do is deceive the nation into going to war based on bad intel, or outright lies. The president should not put through budgets that drive up debt. The president should not undermine the constitution.

Cry? Crying is what humans do. Presidents are humans. I fail to see how this is a problem.

ysbaddaden @ 29:

23 Doggiebobo

I remember back in 1988 getting phone polls on the Bush/Dukakis election. One asked me if I was a Republican or a Democrat, and I answered I was a cynic. Another asked me if the election were held tommorrow would I vote for Bush or Dukakis, I answered Pee Wee Herman. And another I remember asked me if I was a liberal or a conservative, and I answered conservative, I believe in the Divine Right of kings.

Damn, and you live here in Texas(as I) and YOU get polled every 20 years. When is
it my turn?

JW @ 31:

Emmit @ 21:

Emmit @ 17:

Hail to the Chimp @ 9:

I did notice that Barack didn't cry. Good. The president shouldn't cry, as surely as there's no crying in baseball.

Yoda didn't cry, even after all the Jedi were wiped out. He needed to hold it together.

Obviously, Yoda's a movie character, but my point is that the President shouldn't publicly cry, he needs to hold it together for America.

Oh good god. What the president should not do is deceive the nation into going to war based on bad intel, or outright lies. The president should not put through budgets that drive up debt. The president should not undermine the constitution.

Cry? Crying is what humans do. Presidents are humans. I fail to see how this is a problem.

I agree with everything you said, even the part about the president crying in private. Of course we're all human and cry. But in public the President should hold it together.

Congress members get $4,000 pay raise

WASHINGTON - Fortunately for members of Congress, their pay isn't tied to their approval ratings. Lawmakers in 2008 will receive salaries of $169,300, a boost of $4,100 over the pay they have lived with since January 2006.

I don't buy the Bradley Effect as an explanation. My observations indicate that people who won't vote for someone because of race don't lie about who they're going to vote for, they just make up another reason for why they're voting the way they are.

"I'm not voting against Obama because he's black, I'm voting against him because he doesn't have enough experience."

So let me get this straight, a 2 term Senator that has raised over $100 million dollars and recently won re-election with 80% of the vote wins a primary in a state very close to her own and has generally polled ahead of the other candidates and that can only mean one thing: it's blatantly obvious that the election MUST be rigged. Right, got it.

Don't forget The Bush Effect

31 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - President Bush warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it meddles again with U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, opening a Mideast peacemaking mission Wednesday on an ominous note.

Blue Lensman @ 39:

I don't buy the Bradley Effect as an explanation. My observations indicate that people who won't vote for someone because of race don't lie about who they're going to vote for, they just make up another reason for why they're voting the way they are.

"I'm not voting against Obama because he's black, I'm voting against him because he doesn't have enough experience."

Or perhaps, if registered as an "Independent"(tho really being a Republican), a person
may be opposed to Obama because his middle name is Hussin and being narrow minded,
automatically associate him w/Sadam H. There are people "out there" who are soooo
bigoted and narrow minded; I know, I have talked w/some of them.

This is what hardball is about tonight. The giant seer of all seers is trying to figure out why the voters made him look like he didn't have his finger on NH's pulse.

Matthews just advertised that another different Hardball will be on at eleven tonight. Is he now going to have three shows per night or is MSNBC about to put someone else in his seven o'clock spot? He didn't give any reason for this new eleven o'clock show.

pissed off patricia @ 47:

This is what hardball is about tonight. The giant seer of all seers is trying to figure out why the voters made him look like he didn't have his finger on NH's pulse.

Matthews just advertised that another different Hardball will be on at eleven tonight. Is he now going to have three shows per night or is MSNBC about to put someone else in his seven o'clock spot? He didn't give any reason for this new eleven o'clock show.

He's working extra hard to try and save his job. I don't think it will work.

i really believe there is a bush/cliton alliance. of course the fix was in - the cheat apparatus was already set up. did you see the looks on some of the msnbc peoples faces last night? they couldn't say it but man did the wtf look in there eyes really show through - especially chuck todd - keith o did hint at the weirdness of the vote outcome though. i knew things were going to get whacky when somebody "fainted" at the morning obama event on tuesday. the powerful will do anything to keep and maintain their power... anything. bush cliton bush cliton bush -(as in jeb is next).

Blue Lensman @ 49:

pissed off patricia @ 47:

This is what hardball is about tonight. The giant seer of all seers is trying to figure out why the voters made him look like he didn't have his finger on NH's pulse.

Matthews just advertised that another different Hardball will be on at eleven tonight. Is he now going to have three shows per night or is MSNBC about to put someone else in his seven o'clock spot? He didn't give any reason for this new eleven o'clock show.

I've heard that Tweety has already booked flights to Michigan, Nevada and S. Carolina
so that he can(with his obsession) continue to "stalk" Hillary and that may be reason
for MSNBC considering cancellation of his show

I don't think that anyone who has such a closed mind that they would never vote for a black man is going to lie about it to anyone. Most of them would be all proud of their ignorance.

Every third comment is about Diebolt, but no bloggers dares go there . . . why? Lack of what cojones! John, pull out the briefs and have a gaze downward. Anything? Kos? Anything there under you Fomer-CIA-agent boxers? Firedoglake girls? . . . well, symbolically, anything? John A at Americanblog . . . I see you as a French brief guy . . . anything? Nope? Yeah, just ignore you comment crowd, your readers, right? Play it safe! Attaboy!

L.A. Confidential @ 50:

Hillary Tears! Obama Rules! (Meanwhile . . . . . . . . .

AP - 17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy was a victory for the Bush administration, which had urged the courts not to wade into a politically charged issue already being investigated by the Justice Department, CIA and Congress.

Thank you, LA Confidential. Please keep reminding everyone of this, and the fact that the neocons are still trying to kick up a shitstorm in Iran, even after getting publicly pantsed by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies involved in the 2007 National Intelligence Report.

God, we can't remove these lunatics from office fast enough. Impeachment belongs on the table, where it's always belonged, for every president in the history of the U.S.

You break the law, you gotta go.

I think the only people really talking about race and gender upfront are the media morons like Tweety. I honestly think most of America has moved on. We're interested in ideas, experience, competence. At least on the Democratic side. The Republicans are interested in who is the most Goddy, who will blow up the most stuff, and who is the most 9/11.

Smellrat @ 57:

Every third comment is about Diebolt, but no bloggers dares go there . . . why? Lack of what cojones! John, pull out the briefs and have a gaze downward. Anything? Kos? Anything there under you Fomer-CIA-agent boxers? Firedoglake girls? . . . well, symbolically, anything? John A at Americanblog . . . I see you as a French brief guy . . . anything? Nope? Yeah, just ignore you comment crowd, your readers, right? Play it safe! Attaboy!

Kos, in spite of his great contributions, is just a little too much of a suck-up. He so badly wants to be considered legit. And the Firedoglake gals, as tough as they are, are a bit squeamish about digging under the surface of anything until it's deemed "safe" to do so.

Emmit @ 59:

L.A. Confidential @ 50:

Hillary Tears! Obama Rules! (Meanwhile . . . . . . . . .

AP - 17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy was a victory for the Bush administration, which had urged the courts not to wade into a politically charged issue already being investigated by the Justice Department, CIA and Congress.

Thank you, LA Confidential. Please keep reminding everyone of this, and the fact that the neocons are still trying to kick up a shitstorm in Iran, even after getting publicly pantsed by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies involved in the 2007 National Intelligence Report.

God, we can't remove these lunatics from office fast enough. Impeachment belongs on the table, where it's always belonged, for every president in the history of the U.S.

You break the law, you gotta go.

It's going to be hard enough for a Dem to clean up this mess beginning in 09 as it is but if the Neocons get in again we are totally SCREWED.

If there is no credible investigation and explanation of why the N.H. polls got it so wrong as to Hillary, if there is just semi-endless speculation and guessing, the American people will be set up for a replay of 2004, when exit polls said one thing, and supposed vote tallies said another.

My $0.02.

"the Bradley Effect" LOL!!! Anyone who believes Hillary is not going to be the next Prez. has been watching too much cable news..I suppose Omaba will appear to be a contender in the interest of making for an interesting Campaign on the part of the media but this is not anything new in elections..Once The Clinton camp opens up their mighty war chest and Bill gets his Mojo going when he starts stump speaking Look out!!

#64 - You didn't ask me but (1) no, I'm not going to click through 10 links, 1/2 of which are to some obscure web site full grandiose theories of electoral/political malfeasance and (2) I'm a supporter of whoever gets the Democratic nomination in November because that's the election that matters.

pissed off patricia @ 68:

Emmit @ 59:

L.A. Confidential @ 50:

Hillary Tears! Obama Rules! (Meanwhile . . . . . . . . .

AP - 17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy was a victory for the Bush administration, which had urged the courts not to wade into a politically charged issue already being investigated by the Justice Department, CIA and Congress.

Thank you, LA Confidential. Please keep reminding everyone of this, and the fact that the neocons are still trying to kick up a shitstorm in Iran, even after getting publicly pantsed by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies involved in the 2007 National Intelligence Report.

God, we can't remove these lunatics from office fast enough. Impeachment belongs on the table, where it's always belonged, for every president in the history of the U.S.

You break the law, you gotta go.

Has there been a post here and I just missed it about those Iranian speed boats coming too close to the US ships? I had to laugh last night when I heard the voice of one of the guys in the speed boats. It sounded like someone talking spooky on Halloween. The thing is the administration has lied to us about so many things that now I doubt everything they say. The boy has cried wolf too many times.

No wonder we doubt the truthiness of the voting machines and just about everything else in government.

8 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - President Bush warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it meddles again with U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, opening a Mideast peacemaking mission Wednesday on an ominous note.

Disbelief in polls is good for criticising MSM.

It's also good for stealing elections.

L.A. Confidential @ 73:

pissed off patricia @ 68:

Emmit @ 59:

L.A. Confidential @ 50:

Thank you, LA Confidential. Please keep reminding everyone of this, and the fact that the neocons are still trying to kick up a shitstorm in Iran, even after getting publicly pantsed by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies involved in the 2007 National Intelligence Report.

God, we can't remove these lunatics from office fast enough. Impeachment belongs on the table, where it's always belonged, for every president in the history of the U.S.

You break the law, you gotta go.

Has there been a post here and I just missed it about those Iranian speed boats coming too close to the US ships? I had to laugh last night when I heard the voice of one of the guys in the speed boats. It sounded like someone talking spooky on Halloween. The thing is the administration has lied to us about so many things that now I doubt everything they say. The boy has cried wolf too many times.

No wonder we doubt the truthiness of the voting machines and just about everything else in government.

8 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - President Bush warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it meddles again with U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, opening a Mideast peacemaking mission Wednesday on an ominous note.

L.A. Confidential @ 73:

pissed off patricia @ 68:

Emmit @ 59:

L.A. Confidential @ 50:

Thank you, LA Confidential. Please keep reminding everyone of this, and the fact that the neocons are still trying to kick up a shitstorm in Iran, even after getting publicly pantsed by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies involved in the 2007 National Intelligence Report.

God, we can't remove these lunatics from office fast enough. Impeachment belongs on the table, where it's always belonged, for every president in the history of the U.S.

You break the law, you gotta go.

Has there been a post here and I just missed it about those Iranian speed boats coming too close to the US ships? I had to laugh last night when I heard the voice of one of the guys in the speed boats. It sounded like someone talking spooky on Halloween. The thing is the administration has lied to us about so many things that now I doubt everything they say. The boy has cried wolf too many times.

No wonder we doubt the truthiness of the voting machines and just about everything else in government.

8 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - President Bush warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it meddles again with U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, opening a Mideast peacemaking mission Wednesday on an ominous note.

Saw that. Wasn't it a speedboat? The world's most advanced military navy is making a huge scene about a speedboat they could have blown out of the water with their handguns? Good grief.

Sorry, what I meant to say to LA Confidential is that someone, later on the open thread, ought to post some links to the truth of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as well as last year's Chicago TRibune front page story on the U.S.S. Liberty.

It's very important for ordinary Americans to understand the documented evidence of false flag attacks, and how they've been used over the ages to lie nation's to war.

(Sorry for going off-topic, monitors, but I won't be around a computer for the rest of the day. See you later.)

ConcernedCanuck @ 79:

L.A. Confidential @ 73:

pissed off patricia @ 68:

Emmit @ 59:

Has there been a post here and I just missed it about those Iranian speed boats coming too close to the US ships? I had to laugh last night when I heard the voice of one of the guys in the speed boats. It sounded like someone talking spooky on Halloween. The thing is the administration has lied to us about so many things that now I doubt everything they say. The boy has cried wolf too many times.

No wonder we doubt the truthiness of the voting machines and just about everything else in government.

8 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - President Bush warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it meddles again with U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, opening a Mideast peacemaking mission Wednesday on an ominous note.

Saw that. Wasn't it a speedboat? The world's most advanced military navy is making a huge scene about a speedboat they could have blown out of the water with their handguns? Good grief.

Exactly...and when did the U.S. of A become the owner of the Persian Gulf, having there
a large contingency of Aircraft carriers/battle ships, etc.without being invited.

I've also now learned that Bush=Clinton and Clinton=Bush. One simply can't tell the Clinton years apart from these last 7 Bush years. Yep, I would say one in the same. Remember that country that Clinton illegally invaded based on lies, the rampant domestic spying, the deficits, the falling dollar, inflation, torture and on and on. Right, got it. No wonder I can't seem to shake this feeling that we, Democrats, are going to manage to lose this election.

Two media sources are now reporting that the exit polls did NOT match the actual results. Chris Matthews and US News are reporting that the exit polls *were* showing an Obama victory. This is a crystal clear sign of the Bradley Effect.

Matthews went further to say the a detailed inspection of some precincts have already determined that voters definitely and provably lied to the exit pollsters about having voted for Obama.

The Bradley effect was in play. It wasn't the whole story, but it was there and seems to have played a large part.

Emmit @ 87:

RC635 @ 72:

#64 - You didn't ask me but (1) no, I'm not going to click through 10 links, 1/2 of which are to some obscure web site full grandiose theories of electoral/political malfeasance and (2) I'm a supporter of whoever gets the Democratic nomination in November because that's the election that matters.

Well, at least you admit to your willful ignorance. I suppose you deserve a little credit.

One could also say it's not tinfoil asshattery, either. Depends on your POV.

Emmit @ 87:

RC635 @ 72:

#64 - You didn't ask me but (1) no, I'm not going to click through 10 links, 1/2 of which are to some obscure web site full grandiose theories of electoral/political malfeasance and (2) I'm a supporter of whoever gets the Democratic nomination in November because that's the election that matters.

Well, at least you admit to your willful ignorance. I suppose you deserve a little credit.

Nobody has come up with an explanation for one simple point. Why would Diebold, a Republican company, help out Hillary? Hillary shows to be just as strong a Democratic candidate as Obama and much stronger than Edwards. So why would they do that?

We’ll be hearing lots more about the reasons for the pollster’s failure in NH in the days to come. I’m just enjoying the fact the polls lied so the pundits now have to eat crow and it’s starting to look like we might have an actual race on our hands where the voters and not the powers that be get to do the deciding. Who’d have thunk?

Possibly one of the main reasons the polls were so far off was election fraud. That can't be ruled out. Obama may not want to contest things because as was pointed out, he did relatively well. A recount would be expensive as well.

As much as this leaves the impression of a wide open race, in fact the opposite may be occurring: rather than reflecting the true wish of the people who voted, the primary winner in both parties were aided by a corrupt and compromised system.

Supporters of Ron Paul have identified at least two townships where Dr. Paul was reported to have zero votes but later after voters noticed the discrepancy they reversed their totals, Sutton giving Ron Paul 31 votes(Not sure what the total was in the other.) The town clerk in Sutton when asked about the omission blamed it on human error.

The also have high levels of "other" selections. Who is this mysterious other, anyway? And in Iowa, they still haven't released the preliminary data that supported the results there. Other individuals are coming forward with tales of discrepancies in Iowa as well. My hope is that Dr. Paul demands a recount in NH, but it may take a few days for the tips about issues in specific NH townships to come forward to create enough critical mass to justify the $70,000+ to do the recount, but it doesn't look good overall.

Something really stinks here, and it doesn't matter who you support or which party you prefer, this is very scary. If you can't trust the election results -- just remember John Kerry in Ohio in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000 -- do you really have a functional democracy? If not, then all this is is good television or a magic show. But it isn't a democracy, no matter how you try to spin it.

RC635 @ 92:

Emmit @ 87:

RC635 @ 72:

#64 - You didn't ask me but (1) no, I'm not going to click through 10 links, 1/2 of which are to some obscure web site full grandiose theories of electoral/political malfeasance and (2) I'm a supporter of whoever gets the Democratic nomination in November because that's the election that matters.

Well, at least you admit to your willful ignorance. I suppose you deserve a little credit.

IF one is to buy into the Diebold "conspiracy theory", I can think of only one reason
the Rep. controlled company might favor(rig)votes for Hillary. Much of the Republican
conservative, right wingnut, is comprised of "Hate Clinton", so it is possible(buy remotely
probably) that in order to keep that hatred attitude in the forefront, Diebold felt it
could strenghten the Rep. base if, when comes Nov. 08, the Republican nominee
is facing Hillary(another Clinton). Hope this makes sense; but it is pure speculation
and I have absolutely no evidence to support this theory.

Nobody has come up with an explanation for one simple point. Why would Diebold, a Republican company, help out Hillary? Hillary shows to be just as strong a Democratic candidate as Obama and much stronger than Edwards. So why would they do that?

Do note that there seems to be some reason to doubt that the Bradley Effect explains the outcome, especially considering the polls were actually right about Obama, they just didn’t account for the surge in votes for Hillary. Ezra wonders if it wasn’t the caucuses that did the discriminating.

what about Diebold?!

QUALAR @ 95:

[...] I think Matthews brought up the Bradley factor before Eugene Robinson. ...

Actually no, Tweety didn't. I scoured my recording for the first mention of it. The clips in C&L's video are in sequence from msnbc's NH post-primary night coverage. Tweety did keep steering the conversation back to it but didn't mention it directly himself after Robinson first brought it up. I don't doubt the rest of what you said, or your exit polling data, but it would've added to your point a lot if you'd have incl a link to it.

In North Carolina, we called it the Helms Factor. Every election, Jesse Helms would poll down by 10 points and end up winning by 10.

But shouldn't this also be a factor for Hilary. In fairness, only Edwards numbers should have gone up from the polls to the vote.

The question is how many racist and sexist people do we need to ensure another Republican administration? Sigh.

96 Doggiebobo Says

Nobody has come up with an explanation for one simple point. Why would Diebold, a Republican company, help out Hillary? Hillary shows to be just as strong a Democratic candidate as Obama and much stronger than Edwards. So why would they do that?

We saw what happenned when the Democrats were elected to Congress: despite being swept to power to change things, it is hard to argue they really did.

Maybe Diebold isn't as much a Republican company but more an establishment company, and if the powers that be want candidate A to do well on the Democrat side, candidate A does well. Maybe this whole primary process is nothing more than the illusion of choice when in the end it will be those same powers that be who choose the final two candidates which will essentially be the same candidate in that policies followed -- endless warfare and no-bid contracts, advancing of the police state, the continued stripping of our civil liberties -- will be the same regardless of who is ultimately elected. And of course those same powers that be will have the dirt on either candidate and the media behind them to shape the public's perceptions about said candidates, dropping the bomb on one or the other as suits their purposes.

To ignore that possibility is naive, very, as is ignoring what kind of state exists if these conditions exist.

Another Clinton in the White House is another Bush in the White House. Same shit, different assholes. Kiss your money good-bye and say hello to the war machine.

David @ 104:

what do you mean, IF?

Doggiebobo @ 109:

David @ 104:

I did not make the comment you referenced at 96 relating to "why" Diebold may have
favored Hillary...MY comment was inadvertely "inserted" above the concluding statement;
see No.96 the "middle para" for my thoughts..

My apologies, you are right. Hasty typing. But my point still stands.

Oh so now the black folks are making a big deal out of racism...they are calling all us white folks who don't vote for a black man a racist....S.O.B. what a cop out. They slam HIllary because she is a woman...but oh no that's not sexist. They slam Hillary because she got choked up, but oh no that's not sexist. But you better damn site vote for a black man over someone white or we'll call you racist.

Correct me if I am wrong, bush hasn't taken the right away from us to make our own choice in the voting booth, but the Obama supporters seem to want to.

Marge @ 112:

Oh so now the black folks are making a big deal out of racism...they are calling all us white folks who don't vote for a black man a racist....S.O.B. what a cop out. They slam HIllary because she is a woman...but oh no that's not sexist. They slam Hillary because she got choked up, but oh no that's not sexist. But you better damn site vote for a black man over someone white or we'll call you racist.

Sorry Marge, I must have missed this. Exactly where is the article/source indicating
that black folks are calling any white wjp did not vote for Obama a racist?

ysbaddaden @ 20:

Polls really show only trends and relationships, not necessarily concrete data.

But the MSM hates vagaries and look for stories, that are inevitably wrong, but like boosh, they blame the intelligence.

until the introduction of electronic voting machines, exit polls were generally reliable. no longer.

Bull shit. Get rid of the corrupt voting machines and the polling freaks that give us who ever they want.

Take away as much or all of the reasons we could have to question this shit and stop feeding us this crap. over and over and over and over and over and over.

Marge @ 112:

Oh so now the black folks are making a big deal out of racism...they are calling all us white folks who don't vote for a black man a racist....S.O.B. what a cop out. They slam HIllary because she is a woman...but oh no that's not sexist. They slam Hillary because she got choked up, but oh no that's not sexist. But you better damn site vote for a black man over someone white or we'll call you racist.

Correct me if I am wrong, bush hasn't taken the right away from us to make our own choice in the voting booth, but the Obama supporters seem to want to.

Marge,

Hyperbole much. Seriously chill out. The negroes aren't wild in the streets yet.

What a bunch of BS. The vote was hacked.

...

If the vote is not thoroughly vetted and audited why trust it?

This is not complicated, people.

...

Old Billy @ 123:

Just a note, can anyone confirm? Both Clinton and Obama were awarded 9 delegates as a result of the primary. So, they tied, right?

Actually, Senator Obama won because he got one more "superdelegate." (Yeah, I hate the superdelegate system but that is a whole different post.)

David s @ 119:

People,

The EXIT POLLS were wrong. Both MSNBC, US News, and Fox have said the exit polls were showing Obama in the lead.

This means that voters LIED to exit pollsters. It wasn't about changing/making up their mind. To make that sort of impact, these voters would have had to have lied to pollsters in large numbers. They clearly only lied in one direction, they lied about voting for Obama.

This is clear proof of the Bradley/Wilder effect.

That many people lied? BULL!!!!!!!!

A.John.Joe @ 129:

According to this tally,

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

the machine count vs. the paper count gave Hillary a +5.4% upwards bump in contrast to Obama's -3.0%. (And remark BTW that Hillary was the ONLY candidate who benefited from the machines on the dem side of things).

On the repub side Romney was the big beneficiary from machine count giving him a +7.5% bump. This compared to Huckabee, Paul and McCain who all took a -2/-2,5% hit.

How these irregularities can be explained I don't see. Maybe the machines were more prone to an 'Bradley' or 'Tweety' "Effect" ?!?

A.John.Joe i posted about that in 97 but got no response. It's very suspicious, although I haven't seen much solid evidence that anything went wrong yet, or where those numbers came from.

myrna abdel-gawad @ 131:

ysbaddaden @ 1:

Why ask why?

As soon as the results were called for Hillary I immediately thought of the Bradley effect. Tom Bradley was polling way ahead of Pete Wilson but in the privacy of the voting booth people could not vote for a black man. Yes, unfortunately Robinson of the WaPo is correct. He always is.
Imagine a year where the Democrats lose their People of Color votes.

BTW: the towns reporting include the three places where Giuliani got exactly 9.11% of the votes...

[Deleted. No 9/11 conspiracy theories or links to sites that promote them, please. Site Monitor]

I find it difficult to believe that the sort of people who'd never vote for a black guy would tell pollsters that they were, in fact, going to vote for the black guy, and then turn around and vote for... Hillary Clinton? And only in districts where votes were counted electronically?

I call bullshit on this whole line of reasoning, because the obvious beneficiary of such reversals would be John Edwards, white man. It's far easier to believe there was was mischief involving the use of the same Diebold election gear that's been proven over and over again to be exceptionally mischief-prone than it is to believe that Hillary Clinton is the preferred Dem candidate of closet racists who like to pretend they're not racists in front of pollsters, when there's a perfectly good white guy in the running as well they could have supported instead.

RC635 @ 92:

Emmit @ 87:

RC635 @ 72:

#64 - You didn't ask me but (1) no, I'm not going to click through 10 links, 1/2 of which are to some obscure web site full grandiose theories of electoral/political malfeasance and (2) I'm a supporter of whoever gets the Democratic nomination in November because that's the election that matters.

Well, at least you admit to your willful ignorance. I suppose you deserve a little credit.

Nobody has come up with an explanation for one simple point. Why would Diebold, a Republican company, help out Hillary? Hillary shows to be just as strong a Democratic candidate as Obama and much stronger than Edwards. So why would they do that?

Maybe this headline will shed some light:
Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary
http://alternet.org/story/65869/

Just like in Florida, where Bush always got a bump compared to the exit polls when the votes had no paper trail, something stinks. I read read that in non Diebold towns the results jived with the polls and in Diebold/Premier towns (bigger towns!) it flipped and Hillary got the bump. Huh? Somebody please verify this for me.

Why would they help Hillary in the primaries? Because just like Bill was the original compassionate conservative, she is the new good cop. Everybody knows you can't steal a landslide, so you better make sure everybody in the race is a team player. That's why the last election Prez election was between a Skull & Bones Man and The NumbSkull & BoneHead member.

I predict Hillary will pick Obama as her running mate as assasination insurance.

It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes.
Live Free of Die Bold!

to sitemonitor on @134: well, er.. that link had nothing to do with the actual 9/11 nor any 9/11 conspiracy theories (which I btw don't support) it was only about a fact of the New Hampshire primary. But hey.

The Bradley Effect is very real and anyone who doesn't think so doesn't have a very long memory. Recently we had a black female professor at a university who found a noose around the door knob to her office. In Jena, Louisina we had, shall we say, some bad race relations. In the recent past in Texas a black man was drug behind a truck for miles and killed. Shall I go on? I voted for Tom Bradley in 82 and 86 and if you think that was "long ago" you are living in a dream world. The man was going to be Governor of the largest state in the country and the only reason he wasn't is because he was black. People will say they will vote for a black man or a woman for President for that matter, but when they get in that very private booth, they will not.

Do you people have any idea how many people would have to be in on a coordinated lying scheme of this magnitude? Pollsters take random samples. If liars could volunteer themselves for polling, I could see it. But that's not the case. This whole idea implies that the entire state of New Hampshire had Hillary supporters hiding in secret, all claiming to be Obama supporters. Even though polls may only sample around a thousand people, this scheme would require thousands of supporters, maybe 10% of the electorate. And not one of them to go on a blog and say hey, I lied to a pollster? Not one person finding an email, blog posting, or getting a phone call and thinking hey, this is wrong, someone has to speak up? Or maybe, these people would just naturally act on their racist instincts. This would imply that Hillary supporters, mostly the female demographic that broke for her, are by and large racist. And for every racist who would lie to a pollster, we should see an untold number of racists who would not lie. This would mean a huge contingent of Hillary's base in New Hampshire is racist. But none of Edward's, Richardson's, or anyone else's - they all told pollsters teh truth.

Anyway, this Bradley effect is bullshit.

Isn't that interesting. Polling and exit polls, which were generally pretty accurate tools to generally predict outcomes of elections for decades all of a sudden are wildly out of sync. And we've had questionable elections already -- remember Gore in 2002 -- and then the whole process was supplemented by Diebold machines for the 2004 presidential elections -- remember John Kerry in Ohio. And yet the explaination that so many ascribe to here is that it has nothing to do with any fraud, nothing to do with the fragility and corruption of the whole election process, despite the fact of obvious fraud in the past and the feeling many have that we can't trust the results 100%.

No, the reason for Hillary's 20 point swing -- 20 points!! -- is because people in New Hampshire are racist, and of course the extension of that is if you find that explanation ridiculous, well, then, you must be a racist too because only a racist would be unable to get it.

bbk @ 144:

Anyway, this Bradley effect is bullshit.

I agree, the Bradley effect is not only bullshit, it sounds like willful and likely conscious denial.

billw (author)

"I’m just enjoying the fact the polls lied so the pundits now have to eat crow and it’s starting to look like we might have an actual race on our hands where the voters and not the powers that be get to do the deciding. Who’d have thunk?"

The election is displaying, in plain sight of everyone, that the results of these primarys, and likely every election in America henceforth, are now meaningless. We are not getting the candidates we voted for, we are getting what the media and the powers that be think they can sell us. They are asking us to suspend common sense to accommodate their lies. The powers that be are setting us all up once again, but I guess for some people if their guy, or gal, gets in, they are OK with it this time.

That attitude will kill America faster than any neocon ever could.

Apparently the Bradley Effect did not work in Iowa where Obama won. It materialised because all of a sudden in New Hampshire where Obama lost. Let’s not go this road…please. This smacks of pitiful desperation.

There's a simple and very logical reason it wasn't a factor in Iowa.

Iowa has a public caucus, all voting is in the open. These people are secret racists. They're not about to reveal their secret in public.

As for "not going down this road". I'm not a big believer in hiding from the inconvenient truths. As of tonight, at least two of the networks and some of the print media are saying that the exit polls showed Obama winning the race.

I haven't seen these numbers myself, but if these reporta are true, what we saw WAS a definite example of the bradley effect.

Do you want to give these racists a free pass? I don't! If it's the bradley effect, I want to embarrass the hell out of "Racist New Hampshire". I wonder how many more states will want that label?

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...