When voters confound expectations
By Steve Benen Tuesday Jan 08, 2008 8:30amOh, now I remember. We’re supposed to wait until after voters express a preference to declare a winner of a contest.
I have to say, it’s awfully inconvenient this way. The narrative had been worked out; everyone was in agreement about what was going to happen; and all voters had to do was go along. But noooo; they had to go ahead and vote the way they wanted to — as if this were some kind of open, democratic process — without any consideration for how it might make the rest of us look and feel. Downright selfish, if you ask me.
Before getting into this in any real detail, let’s first note the results of New Hampshire’s Democratic primary, with nearly all the precincts reporting:
1. Clinton — 39.1%
2. Obama — 36.4%
3. Edwards — 16.9%
4. Richardson — 4.6%
5. Kucinich — 1.3%
6. Gravel — 0.1%
There’s no shortage of angles to all of this, of course, and I’ll have more detailed analysis throughout the day, but first, let’s briefly go one at a time, taking a look at Spin vs. Reality.
Hillary Clinton — What Clinton fans are saying: Say hello to the new “comeback kid.” What Clinton critics are saying: If she hadn’t cried the other day, none of this would have happened.
Who’s right? Well, it’s probably too soon to tell. The New Hampshire victory was incredibly impressive, and arguably makes her the co-frontrunner — if there is such a thing — for the nomination going forward. Will she get a post-N.H. bump in the polls? Probably, but we don’t yet know how big and whether it will help in Nevada and South Carolina.
Barack Obama — What Obama fans are saying: One out of two isn’t bad, and New Hampshire has always been Clinton’s strongest state. What Obama critics are saying: Weren’t you guys up by double digits on Monday?
Who’s right? Probably both. A close, second-place finish is disappointing for the Obama camp, but the senator remains in pretty good shape, and is now in a better position to characterize this as a two-person race.
John Edwards — What Edwards fans are saying: We did better than the fourth-place finish four years ago. What Edwards critics are saying: It’s a two-person race, and Edwards isn’t one of the two.
Who’s right? Probably the critics. An Obama win would have been far better for Edwards. A Clinton upset, coupled by a lackluster, third-place finish, puts Edwards in a pretty tough spot.
Bill Richardson — What Richardson fans are saying: We gained a slightly higher percentage than we got in Iowa. What Richardson critics are saying: Time to gracefully step aside, Bill.
Who’s right? Critics are. If there’s a scenario by which Richardson makes a comeback, I don’t see it. As recently as Monday, Richardson was telling reporters he was looking to finish in the top three. He didn’t even come close.
Dennis Kucinich — What Kucinich fans are saying: We don’t care about election results; we’re going to keep fighting. What Kucinich critics are saying: Don’t you have a primary fight in your Ohio House district to worry about?
Who’s right? Probably both.
Mike Gravel — What Gravel fans are saying: We would have done a lot better, but our guy had the flu this week. What Gravel critics are saying: Gravel’s still running?
Who’s right? Critics are. Gravel made a splash in the early debates, but now that he’s not getting invitations to the events anymore, it’s hard to see what Gravel really hopes to accomplish.
Plenty more to come.
Login or Register to post comments.
the polls are never this far off
obama won
the vote was rigged
I read the delegate count on another site. Right now, Obama and Clinton are tied(it doesn't include super delegates). Edwards is a couple behind. There is no reason for Edwards to quit now.
Sen. Obama's little fairy tail just wandered into reality.
Chris Mathews was on Scarborough this morning. He claimed that the polls, etc would never stop & he'd always make predictions because that's what Americans like. He then went on to say that the polls were wrong because the people polled lied. His actual words were "you remember Tonto? "Me thinks paleface lies." He then went on to imitate a poll question "Excuse me sir/madam, would you vote for an African American for president" "Of course."
I had to go to work and missed the rest but it's pretty clear what he was saying. Interestingly, I read on Think Progress that last night Chris was saying the polls got it wrong and mayb they/we shouldn't rush to make predictions without waiting for voters to vote. Sounds like he changed his tune overnight.
they should not "project" winners... they should count all the votes, then tell us who won... it's ok to give us the current numbers during the count, but let us draw our own conclusions...
The polls weren't wrong. Everyone keeps suggesting they were. They weren't. Independents went to McCain thinking Obama wasn't gonna be in trouble, but that McCain was. McCain, as a result, got overwhelming support, partially because of his history with the state. If you do the math, that's where a large chunk of voters appear to be missing. Hillary Clinton benefitted from a bunch of selfish old hags who wanted to put some forward that couldn't possibly win because they're gonna be dead by 2012 anyways.
I can't understand the women I know who are supprting Hillary ONLY because she is a woman. If you point out her Iraq, Patriot Act, Patriot Act renewal, attempt to stifle changes in the Patriot Act, cluster bombs on civilians and Kyl/Lieberman votes they'll say, "Yes, but it's really time for a woman'.
I'll point out that it's time for a moral, effective president who will have some actual standing here and internationally and I'll still get the 'I'd really like to see a woman in office'. Pathetic, pathetic. Every bit as sexist as the men who won't vote for her because she's a woman.
I did have a friend who assured me that because Hillary would do absolutely anything to get elected, and that means cozying up to AIPAC to be Senator from NY, the hawk votes will dissapear if she becomes president.
Analysis? Well, Edwards is a white man, and got almost half as many votes as Obama, and more than 40% of the votes cast for Hillary, so the continued domination of the White Male in national politics looks questionable.
The only Latino in the race, Richardson, received less than 5% of the vote, although 'his people' make up over 90% of the population (In LA). So it looks as though the illegal alien question is settled, there's gonna be a lot of 60's-era Chevvies with little balls lining the windows racing south, to cross the border, with US border-state Sheriffs, like Joe Arpaio of Arizona. in hot pursuit, guns blazing.
Gravel ended up where gravel always does, at the very bottom of the fish tank, and Kucinich, the maverick 'White Hope' of the 'weird and wonderful' set, is barely keeping his balance on Gravel's shoulders.
Now, on the republican side......Oh, who gives a sh*t about the republicans? Only the CrazyChristianEvangelicalFundamentalistRapture freaks, like Huckabee, and he can't, and don't, count.
If diebold was involved, it could explain everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
Sometimes when I listen to these "political experts" I think, where did you get that shit from? Now I know.
Here is my take.
Hillary... God Help us if she wins because the righties would have their bogeyman and it will cause the religious and the corporatists to come out of the wood work to vote against her... no matter who wins in the Repuke nomination.
Obama... Reminds me of all the other hopeful democrats that had teens/twenties rallying for them. They may show up once in a while but their staying power is dubious. I'd love someone to do a comparison to McGovern.
Edwards... why every single working person doesn't put this man first is amazing to me. If anyone is going to change healthcare, Iraq, Iran and the myriad of other problems it would be Edwards
As the election is in full swing and everyone is debating where the candidates stand on policy issues its more important now than ever to be informed about your vote. I've created this kick ass resource for anyone looking to see whatever answers, topics, candidates etc. they want - in video.
I put an enormous amount of work into this and it really is a great thing... please check it out... please?
http://debates.redlasso.com/dbt
Wasn't nh a stronghold for HRC? Polling expectations aside Obama did fine. The Clintons went negative and played the poor me card. That makes me want to puke.
.
#9 Rom,
You are right on target!
That is the angle we need to research FIRST!
.
New Hampshire primary voters can go to Hell
"Dennis Kucinich — What Kucinich fans are saying: We don’t care about election results; we’re going to keep fighting. What Kucinich critics are saying: Don’t you have a primary fight in your Ohio House district to worry about?
Who’s right? Probably both.
Mike Gravel — What Gravel fans are saying: We would have done a lot better, but our guy had the flu this week. What Gravel critics are saying: Gravel’s still running?
Who’s right? Critics are. Gravel made a splash in the early debates, but now that he’s not getting invitations to the events anymore, it’s hard to see what Gravel really hopes to accomplish."
I'm really losing faith in the staff here at C&L. I"m not bitter because Kucinich or Gravel didn't get any votes, I knew they wouldn't, how could they ever compete in this rigged game anyways. The thing that upsets me is that C&L is supposed to go against the grain and lately it seems that they are trying to go along with the Mainstream Democrats the way DKOS and HuffPost do. C&L is ignoring the media shut out of the ONLY candidate to consistently vote no against the wars as well as the patriot act, military commisions act, and the recently ignored Homegrown Terrorism Act. They also ignore the only caqndidate on stage responsible for ending the Vietnam War through filibustering the Draft. Kucinich and Gravel are the only ones who are not Crooks and Liars. They need grassroot support so the people know who they are. The corparate media ignores them even when they win debates. (Kucincih won the ABC poll after their first debate and yet not a word). Bluegal had some great posts about Kucinich (thnxs bluegal), why didn't the rest of C&L get on board? Is it because these guys aren't "electable"? What a crock! Anyone's electable, you just have to have the courage to use your platform to spread the word. Even now C&L treats these two like a joke. You all know K-man and Gravel are the only candidates for a true democracy. Thanks for going along with the MSM, C&L's new BFF!!!
Lauren @ 7:
You are right about Hillary. In the Delis, she's referred to as 'Our Meshuganah Shiksa'.
even tom brokaw, on msnbc, admonished (somewhat) the pundits for, basically, trying to sway the electorate...
maybe C&L can find that video segment...
Rob @ 11:
I contributed to Edwards campaign yesterday. It's time to take 5 minutes to send Edwards what you can afford. The media is only interested in those that can spend big bucks for the ads. Edwards will not be able to get his message out without ad money. Put your money where your keyboard is.
let me preface this by saying that this is NOT an endorsement of anyone, and, while i completely agree with the characterization of media histrionics, this is NOT about them either.
i found this chart particularly interesting. essentially, the polls were spot-on regarding obama, but obviously off regarding hillary.
which is absolutely a statement on the media: why can't they accurately read their own stuff and / or why do they not report the poll-versus-results? simple, because it would only be further proof of just how un-analytical they are. (it's, you know, so boooooring after all.)
I keep reading stuff about Independents jumping to McCain because Obama wasn't in trouble, or had enough votes already, or whatever the twisted logic.
Folks, that makes not one ounce of sense. It's like suggesting that if it's down to McCain and Obama in the general election, that if Obama is being shown to be the runaway winner, that Independents will switch to McCain 'Just to be fair'. It's nonsense.
Looks like there are an awful lot of Bush Democrats in New Hampshire. I mean seriously, and I think to quote Andrew Sullivan would be best: "She's Cheney in a pantsuit!" She has this foreign policy that won't actually engage our enemies into talking and hammering out agreements but will only alienate them even more than what Bush/Cheney has done. Plus she's big business because her health care plan is basically everyone is required to buy the same old dysfunctional private sector health insurance. Or maybe it was because she cried...I don't know.
Since this was a primary you can start to see more of an overall trend that could tell us something about November.
Cliton 22%
Obama 20%
McCain 17%
Romney 15%
Edwards 9%
Huckabee 5%
Dems 55%
Repubs 45%
500,000 votes cast and a record turnout!
I'm a independent/Democrat.Anyone but a Republican or Hilary.I was really rooting for Edwards but Obama would have been fine.What a bunch of losers these Republicans are.Desperate is the word. McCain was everything but buried;and now he can beat Clinton.Huh? My only worry is will the Democrats self destruct they have the Senate ,House and the White House.
.
TWO primaries down, 48 more to go and who needs to step aside, and why again?
Critics who seek to disparage their opponent will always suggest that the opponent shouldn't stick around and waste their time and money. But then again, if the critics aren't intimidated, then they wouldn't be concerned. Now if "critics" it is meant as pundits and reporters, keep in mind, they are paid for their opinion, which, like torture, can exact the necessary information without substance.
.
To be fair to Hillary, any politician who wants to be elected in the US of I, 'cozies up' to AIPAC, in order to get their share of the campaign contributions AIPAC doles out from the Israeli 'Foreign Aid' funds AIPAC is allotted by Israel, to make sure good old US of I politicians keep voting for more 'Foreign Aid' funds for Israel.
Kind of a 'Bi-National' 'Foreign Aid' circle-jerk.
Crap, if Hillary wins the Dem nomination, we'll have to rely on Repubs stealing the election to keep her out of the whitehouse. Fortunately they've done it twice before.
whatever @ 1:
If that's what you think about the democratic process, maybe you should relocate or join the Republicans.
What an irresponsible remark, when Obama won it you people thought the country had spoken, when Clinton wins it's a crime.
Max-1 @ 14:
I agree, but, as I just suggested in another thread, this shouldn't be taken as suggesting more polling. Another area to look into is the tripartite theory of attitudes and how different components come into play in different situations. When you ask a person would they plan on doing, the strongest components are cognitive. When the same person acts, the strongest is often affective. An emotional dislike of Edwards based on his pointed reply to Clinton at the debate may have turned the affective component of many women against Edwards and in favor of Clinton. After all, who lost female voters between Iowa and NH? It wasn't Obama. Obama's percentage remained the same.
Lauren @ 7:
Oh, so she'll say and do anything to get elected, and that's why she'll behave ethically once in office?
Preacher Boob @ 26:
And Obama isn't close AIPAC? Even though Lieberman is his favorite senator? Please. Obama people are as hypocritical as the evangelicals and just as crazed for power at any price.
Ron @ 19:
Me, too. Just Do It.
I just love the MSN with there horse race bullshit. My god, only 2 states have voted and all this shit about who won and who lost. So far as I see it , Dems have a strong three way race and at this time in the process thats what we should expect. New Hampshire did show one thing. Dems who do the repugs work for them by personal attacks instead of talking about issues are not going to win. All dems need to always keep there eye on the prize by trying to unite us, not tear us apart.
Weaseldog @ 30:
Is it possible that independents who planned to vote in the democratic primary saw that Obama had a commanding lead going into the primary and decided to vote in the republican primary to ensure a McCain victory over Romney?
I lived and voted in NH and never heard of any ballot tampering. Ron and the rest of the "if it doesn't come out our way it must be wrong even though we don't have any proof" crowd should put a lid on it. And, why is it that women get criticized for voting gender, but, men don't?
Mike Z @ 16:
A M E N !
I'm not a go Hillary fan, but if she gets the nod, I'll vote for her. Having said that, in a one on one debate she can beat any one of the repub candidates. I'm not sure Obama could do that, especially up against McCain. McCain would probably talk down to Obama like an old uncle to a kid. He couldn't do that to Hillary.
Speaking of McCain, I heard his victory speech and I gotta tell you, that was pathetic. He looked more bizarre than he usually does.
Polls were right. Obama got the exact 36% that was projected. The 10% Hillary surge (tears?) was what was unexpected.
kaT @ 28:
I like them both. In fact, I slightly favor Hillary, but I STILL suspect fraud. It really looks suspicious to me, and there are some Ron Paul voters who had a ZERO count for RP in the district where they voted for RP. That to me is pretty close to proof of fraud, unless they're lying about voting for RP. And why would they?
kaT @ 31:
KaT, what's your first language? How do you interpret '...any politician who wants to be elected in the US of I...'? Last time I looked, Obama was a politician.
HappySurge @ 6:
"Selfish old hags?" You're worse than the Swift Boaters. One thing this election has shown me so far is that I've been arguing with Republicans for years that being liberal doesn't mean people are reprobated or hedonist or morally bankrupt, but apparently that's exactly what it means. I don't think I am a liberal after all and I will not vote for Barack Obama no matter what.
Anybody but Obama in '08! After all, one must maintain some integrity even in terrible times like these. Good luck with your dirty little campaign.
And you pay attention to what Chris Mathews says/does? You should not waste your time that way.
mroom @ 4:
it would have been sooo nice to put this to bed...
but now we have to WORK for it...
ANY Dem But the NEOCON Hillary...
neocon=believe we should control the world
Hillary= NEOCON
And you pay attention to what Chris Mathews says/does? You should not waste your time that way...
Max-1 @ 37:
Frustrating, ain't it? Why do folks think they're going to beat the establishment by hitting it over the head with an establishment pol? When their heads meet, they just kiss and keep-on keepin-on, screwing the citizenry and fattening their wallets and bellies.
hey - look what i just found at thinkprogress, from last night's live blogging:
11:36 PM: Talking with Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews lamented the fact that the pollsters and pundits got it all wrong. Brokaw suggested that the results today should cause the media to reevaluate its desire to “stampede the process,” and he cautioned the media to “wait for the voters to make their judgment”:
BROKAW: You know what I think we’re going to have to do?
MATTHEWS: Yes sir?
BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment.
MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess.
BROKAW: No, no we don’t stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they’re saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this.
But we don’t have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process.
Look, I’m not just picking on us, it’s part of the culture in which we live these days. I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don’t begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding, in many cases, as we learned in New Hampshire when they went into the polling booth today or in the last three days. They were making decisions very late.
len roessler @ 36:
Here is the reason I suspect that there may be some shenanigans. If anyone was watching the results, the percentages hardly wavered through all of the counting of the ballots. That just doesn't make sense. People voting, think differently. The percentages should have fluctuated to some degree.
Mike Z @ 16
You said it perfectly. Kucinich is the only true, honest candidate running. I, too, am rather disgusted by C&L's coverage of the primaries. I don't read DailyKrap because I know they're a bunch of tools who really just mirror the mainstream media, but perhaps just a smidge to the left.
I used to think C&L was better, but I've yet to see any truly groundbreaking stuff here about the candidates. It's impossible for anyone with any knowledge of the candidates and half a brain to take Clinton seriously as anything other than a corporate puppet. Edwards proved himself to be a sham by a)voting for the Iraq war, b)regurgitating Bush's lies about Saddam being a grave threat to the world back in 2002 c)voting for the patriot act and d)getting huge sums of money from hedge funds that directly contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis. How can anyone still trust this guy? Why is the blogosphere so in love with him?
Obama is a bit of mystery. While his voting record does closely resemble Clinton's, he did speak out against the Iraq War before it started. However, judging by the great press he's been able to get, I automatically don't trust him and don't see how anyone else can either.
Grassroots candidates like Kucinich and Gravel are the only way our country will ever be able to move forward and become a true democracy. By accepting the corporate puppets that the "Village Elders" present to us, we will never find the change we seek.
So why, C&L, do you continue to focus on the sham candidates?
HappySurge @ 6:
Huh? And the sky is not blue?
I was pleased with the NH Primary election results - not so much because Hillary won, but because the respect of polling results was so badly tarnished. Voting is, and should be, a private and personal decision - and no more a pre-election public statistic than who or what I do in my bedroom. The less confidence voters have in polls, the more likely they are to make an intellectual choice rather than jumping on a bandwagon. This was as much a victory for American voters as it was for Sen. Clinton.
I wish Angela Davis was running. She'd get my vote.
people lie to pollsters and vote their fears. In this case, anger also played a part. People are mad at the MSM for the continuous barrage of hillary-hating.
It's not irresponsible to say the process is being hijacked. It is totally responsible. The system doesn't want to repair itself. The Clintons want this nomination to be given to them instead of having to earn it. And the insiders are doing just that. In the general election there are going to be a lot of democrats voting republican. They may not say it but they will. New Hampshire basically proved nothing. It just proved how corrupt the process is. But we already knew that.
It's hard for loser Republicans to admit that Clinton really won and people really voted for her. For me it's a question of who will absolutely get elected and reverse every idiotic, USA destroying policy of the Bush administration. Clinton. Pure ands simple. Make Obama her VP and it will be a landslide victory.
Clevenative @ 50:
Ya, its hard to get too upset at something that shows the public how bad the msm is
It's interesting that none of the "major" presidential candidates has spoken out on this issue: here we are, on the brink of war, and where are the "antiwar" Democrats? Barack Obama is being touted as some sort of savior who can "bring us together" in a Rapture-like mega love-in of "national unity" and "hope." Yet Obama has said attacking Iran is "on the table," a view he shares with Hillary, Edwards, and all the rest of the Democrats except for Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12176
Thank goodness for us it doesn't matter who is elected President since all the candidates are agents of change. I'm putting my money on the rest of the world eventually reigning in the disaster that is the United States. Probably not too much longer and people will be reading about "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire", with its very own cast of Caligulas and Neros. So everybody pray for the Vandals and Visigoths to get here soon.
This "horse race" crap pisses me off to no end. When people ask me to which party I belong, I tell them I'm unaffiliated. Party loyalty absolves you from having to think critically and make decisions. I liken party affiliation to being a booster of a certain team. Let's say that you're an Atlanta Falcons fan (I've seen one before). You always agree with the calls that go for your team, and you always scream "bullshit" at the calls that go against your team, no matter what the replay shows.
The only reason the republicans are even registering any votes is because of loyalty to the party. No rational being could look at Bushco's tenure, especially 2002-2006, and say, "That was great. I'd like more of that." The republicans have no right to even try to claim that they know how to be "for the people."
New Hampshire voters make a big deal about how they meet and talk to the candidates and make their valued judgements based upon scrupulous analysis of the issues at hand. To hear them tell it hey have mad skills at assessing a candidate's positions and worthiness.
And yet here we are.
redjb @ 44:
You seem to have a broad definition of neocon. After 8 years of necon policy, I think we all know what it is. To say Hillary is a neocon is a stretch, middle of the road dem, yes. I am not a Hillary fan, but I know she would be better then anything the neocon repugs will give us. If I can only make a small step in the right direction, that surely is better then taking a step backwards.
O/T but .... are there any clips around of Stewart carving up that empty excuse for a human David Frum last nite?
Mr Pelicano @ 57:
What? That's ridiculous. Just because they claim to be agents of change doesn't mean they are. Clinton, Edwards and Obama will all maintain the status quo, except under their adminstrations in the future you might be forced by law to buy health insurance.
All three wouldn't commit to leaving Iraq before 2013, and are still threatening Iran. Edwards talks a lot about poverty, but indirectly contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis by his connections with dodgy hedgefunds.
Jon Stewart carving up Frum:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147187&title=david...
whatever @ 1:
Thank You.
I'm astonished at how obtuse this analysis is. It is utterly unrealistic to discuss any election in this county without at least considering the possibility of vote rigging, and when the results are this far off of the pre-election polling, that consideration becomes unavoidable. This folksy "I-guess-those-darned-pollsters-were-wrong-after-all" horseshit is childish & absurd.
Brad Blog has more here.
c. atrox @ 51:
Brittney Spears/Phil McGraw 2008?
lol...
Max-1 @ 66:
Oops... terrible joke.
Sorry. :(
When polls are this far off the Voting Machines should at least be questioned. But people seem to scared to get into that. We know they tampered with voting machines in the past, but this time we can't even consider if that occurred? Especially when the polls proved to be so backwards? Give me a break. At least stand up and determine if our voting process in New Hampshire has or can be rigged.
Andy @ 62:
Anothr person with that wonderfull crystal ball. Exactly what facts can you show us as to what you allege? We will be waiting.
Mike Donnelly @ 39:
I believe that's referred to as the "Tear Bump". Romney used his up way too early.
Orangutan. @ 64:
Die
Bold!
Mike Z @ 16:
Right on, Mike
BDM @ 65:
Exactly man. Wake up. People in Kenya and Pakistan are dying for their right to vote. We don't even question if it is possible to flip the vote results with our "superior" technology. Give me a break and stand up for Democracy.
Yes there has to be shenanigans and foul play involved.
Thats the only way Hillary and Nuke McCain could have won.
I bet there we're old bald men in suits in back rooms tweaking the votes for the desired outcome.
In the whole universe, there are only two candidates that would offer the republicans the chance to retain their misbegotten hold on the White House in 2008.
And those two candidates are 1-2 in the Democratic campaign.
Are we doomed?
whatever @ 1:
If someone wants to prove that dogs are wonderful, the pollsters go through their files, locate the names and other data on pet owners, members of the SPCA or animal rights groups and poll them. Naturally, a massive support for animals, and dogs, is the predictable result.
Max-1 @ 67:
You should be sorry, that was terrible. If you want the misogynist vote, it should be
McGraw/Spears.
The polls were right and that's the shame of it. A small state like that is too susceptible to last minute swings in voter turn-out. 57% of the turn out were women? Women were the major break-away demographic that went for Hillary? 24 hours before the vote, she was going to lose by double digits, but then she cried and said her feelings were hurt? Can this be anything more than a sympathy vote of women voting solely on the basis of gender roles? I bet if you still took another poll of NH today, Obama would still be ahead of Hillary.
We need a primary in a state that's LARGE enough so that the most fickle, flaky voter blocks don't have a decisive say in the outcome. The day of the week that you hold an elections should be less of a decisive factor than the voter blocks who can actually hold their opinions over the long term.
The funny thing is that the polls had Obama 14 points behind in NH just one week ago. Further proof that political polling is practically meaningless. Clinton has been coasting on her frontrunner status in other states based on these same polls. It would have been catastrophic for her to lose in her firewall state, but that didn't happen so now we have an exciting race.
I think it is kind of instructive to look at how the candidates behave when the chips are down. I believe that the Clinton's behavior this week (both of them) have reduced the probability of a final victory for them in November to about zero. Not only was I disappointed in how negative both of the Clintons went, but it is not going to work. Negative campaigning depresses voter turnout, which helps Republicans. She has even proven willing to attack Martin Luther King's legacy when she thought it was to her advantage.
The stupid voting machine conspiracy theory is getting old.
Will that be the Obama excuse for the entire primary?
It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. - Joseph Stalin
I am starting to beleive that possibly some vote rigging went on. When an election mandate is "change" and New Hampshire voters vote against their own self intersts which is "Change" then you have to look at what really happened. If New Hampshire voters say they want change then go out and overwhelmingly support an establishment candidate then you can conclude that voters were confused about what they really say they want. Obama and Edwards are change candidates. Clinton and Riichardson are establishment candidates. Iowa seemed to have gotten it right on the change issue. New Hapshire though? If it can be believed then New Hampshire voted for the two most established candidates in Clinton and McCain. That women broke for Clinton says one thing. That women opted for gender over change and that confounds me. The Clintons look like machine politicians. The status quo. I'm sorry, it is hard to believe that women vote against their own interests which was supposed to be change. I'm starting to have my doubts about this process whether it's democrat or republican.
I guess Hillary just can't win. Now they are saying it was because she got tears in her eyes. How about that republican whip that cried,,,really cried,,,,not once but twice. I didn't hear all that boo ha ha about him.
And they are saying Obama didn't get the white folks to vote for him because they are racist. Did it every occur to those people, that the reason people didn't vote for Obama is because they don't think he has the substance, the know how and fortitude to show up to vote even.
All this complaining because of white votes, hell just wait til he hits the southern state. Racism does run rampant there. Just look at what happened in LA> and hey how about the midwest the places where they can't bus in students.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12176
What terrifies me about the results of the New Hampshire vote is that the two war candidates won.
Senator Clinton and Senator Mc Cain who sang "bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" with delight a while back both voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment in October....which Senator Webb described as "tantamount to declaring war on Iran". The "cakewalk in Iraq" zealots who have been repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran for the last four years have not stopped pushing for military action against Iran. We recently witnessed the MSM turn an event in the Straits of Hormuz into an inflamed event.
Justin Raimando of Antiwar.com writes "The commander of one of the U.S. warships has been quoted as saying that they were "a heartbeat away" from opening fire on their Iranian tormentors, and that just about sums up the chances of an armed conflict breaking out – we're an incident away from going to war with Tehran, and there is every indication that the administration is marshaling its forces, political and diplomatic as well as military, to launch an assault before Bush leaves office."
I am deeply worried by this vote in New Hampshire. I do not want to witness the U.S. attack Iran based on unsubstantiated claims.
I have not heard Hillary or McCain talk about focusing on diplomacy in regard to Iran. Our invasion of Iraq has destroyed the Iraqi peoples lives. This vote in New Hampshire for the war candidates has me worried about the Iranian peoples lives.
bbk @ 78:
Why are people using polls to make decisions? Example, if a poll was taken and you were asked "Do you approve of putting nuclear plants that could explode next to a school in your town?" what would your response be?
pehpsi @ 63:
Thanks. What a creepy, creepy little man.
Why weren't more of us paying attention to stories like this?
New Hampshire, for the Democrats, was the exact opposite of Iowa. They used one of the worst voting systems in America and then handed programming of every memory card in New Hampshire over to a private outfit run by John Silvestro.
First order of business needs to be examining the published precinct results and comparing the hand count locations to the optical scam locations.
-- From Bev Harris. A true American willing to look into our voting system and procedures!! http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530
okieguy @ 80:
Test your skills against the local computer repair store guy. How does your analysis of this voting machine's innards match up to his?
NEW HAMPSHIRE: I am a New Hampshire voter who part... More -- Subject: Can the scanner read upside down or face-down ballot?
CALIFORNIA: Perfume on a carcass does not change w... More -- Subject: Calif. law requires voting machines "safe from fraud or manipulation"
UNITED STATES: "Open source" research project on t... More -- Subject: Live citizen research area on caucus tabulation systems, vendors, key players, routing
PENNSYLVANIA: I recently was the Democratic candid... More -- Subject: Unusual number of votes showed up in write-in category
CALIFORNIA: I would like to make this statement be... More -- Subject: San Francisco should not buy Sequoia
UNITED STATES: The following is a compilation of t... More -- Subject: Are these ES&S/Hart/Diebold disclosures complete?
MASSACHUSETTS: I am trying to find someone to do a... More -- Subject: Want to arrange an Accuvote hack
TEXAS: Need to know if requesting list of name reg... More -- Subject: Are voter rolls public record?
INDIANA: Here are a few things I have learned abou... More -- Subject: Public Access - voter registration records
PENNSYLVANIA: AVS, manufacturer of WINvote, Northa... More -- Subject: Northampton County may sue Advanced Voting Solutions
TEXAS: No Hispanics to translate? I am a citizen a... More -- Subject: Many concerns about Wharton County voting processes
INDIANA: Toxic election procedures - Letter from c... More -- Subject: Indiana Obstruction exposed in Madison County
OHIO: Could you please tell us the status of the H... More -- Subject: Status of election reform bill
USA: All, I am invited to speak at a citizenship s... More -- Subject: Ways to share and evoke voting rights message
blackboxvoting.org
SEARCH* * * * * DONATE* * * * * PAST 24 HOURS
blackboxvoting.org
Black Box Voting (.ORG) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501c(3) organization funded by citizen donations.
Donate Now by Visa, MC, Amex
Contact info: 425-793-1030; cell 206-335-7747; Mailing address: 330 SW 43rd St. Suite K, Box 547, Renton WA 98055. E-mail
NEW: YouTube Video : Silvestro - the Cat with the Exclusive Contract to Control New Hampshire and New England voting machine programming
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78
Presidential selection caucuses - how secure are they?
1-7-07: Silvestro the Cat & New Hampshire Elections
Comma delimited database: NH municipalities hand count vs use Diebold machines: http://www.bbvdocs.org/NH/state/Jan-08-votingsystems-NH.txt
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
John Silvestro and his small private business, LHS Associates, has the exclusive programming contracts for all New Hampshire voting machines, which combined will count about 81 percent of the vote tomorrow.
Diebold and New Hampshire
Here's my analysis: 4% of the nominating primaries are complete, and there is no Democratic or Republican nominee at this point. This is the way it should be.
Sorry about that bad cut and paste could a moderator chop it down to the header and link.
People are really delusional if they think Clinton has a better chance of getting elected than any of the other Democratic candidates. She is by far the most reviled candidate on either side. While I don't agree with the right's irrational hatred of her, I can recognize it. Maybe that's not the case for people living in cozy liberal-progressive havens within blue states, but here in Ohio and elsewhere it is painfully obvious. Nominating Clinton is the best chance of allowing Republicans to squeak out another victory.
Young voters are not going to come out for her. If they see her get the nomination they will just tune out and ignore the election because it is more of the same. What's more, she will super-mobilize the conservatives into a voting frenzy.
If democrats nominate Clinton I will seriously consider not voting or supporting a third-party candidate. I can no longer stand supporting a defeatist party with absolutely no grasp on successful political strategy.
A recent CNN report featured on Lou Dobbs' show highlights just how easy it is to hack a voting machine and change how votes are tallied with just rudimentary programming skills. Experts warn that it takes only a minute for an unsupervised machine to be inserted with a virus and hacked.
View original article here.
Exit polling had Obama ahead, and so did the polls, the last of which had Obama up by THIRTEEN POINTS.
Remember folks, you can't rig a caucus, but you sure as heck can http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/010808_vote_fraud.htm.
Hat tip to the oligarchy -they're letting us know they mean business, just like we do.
Hopefully, we can broker a truce.
okieguy @ 80:
I don't have any problem with the primary, it is what it is. Hillary won a close race for a variety of factors that will be endlessly speculated on. She does have a pretty strong base on the East Coast -- NH is vacationland for New York. The old line Democratic establishment is not exactly excited about changing over to a new generation so it is going to take work. I am astounded by the resistance since it seems obvious to me that the Democrats need an inspiring candidate who can draw large crowds of enthuiastic supporters. That is just me, I guess.
I almost think that some of the Democratic "leadership" would rather lose the election to the Republicans than lose their positions of power within the party.
Now the omniscient 'Media' has decided that those last-minute Hillary 'tears' are what 'confounded' their 'expectations'.
Have you ever looked closely at a malfunctioning press, and noticed that it's often the bent, deformed, loose screws no-longer-holding-it-together that are the problem?
It's the same with the MSM.
Bunch of cry-babies on this thead this morning....Your candidate loses and immediately
and automatically Diebold was involved in rigging the results. Get over it...HILLARY
WON.
BDM @ 96:
The only thing getting old is living in a nation of spineless zombies like okieguy.
You can't rig a caucus, but you CAN hack a voting machine.
It's obvious to at least question the vote counting procedures in any society. As the experts have said...
"It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes." Joseph Stalin.
Then stand on the side of transparency and integrity!!
www.verifiedvoting.org
www.getitstraightby2008.org
http://pol.moveon.org/paper2008
They are voting again this week to ensure our election systems are as good as they can be by 2008. I hope you make your voice heard.
White liberals rule people of color; they do not elect people of color as leaders.
If you walk out of a polling place and lie about who you voted for instead of saying, I'm not going to devulge that kind of information then what does that make you? You want to look politically correct but you lie about your vote? Trying to look a certain way when the results don't bare out makes you look politically incorrect You get the label you weren't hoping for, a liar.
Geez, McGraw/Spears.
That would be Bush II.
An absolute Dolt for President, and a complete whack-job for VP.
Mike Z @ 16:
Who cares what the MSM thinks....Everyone who is only slightly involved in whats going on knows who is running. They will go vote for who they like. I don't know about you, but when I vote I am the only one in the booth. People who actually take the time to go out and vote are not listening to the MSM to who they should vote for. They will make up their own minds as to who they think will best move in the direction they are for. All this conspiracy shit is just that. If you think the fix is in. then why are the powers even going through this? If what you say is true,the great MSM should declare victory and just tell the rest of us to go fuck off.
Doggiebobo @ 99:
Man you ignoramous. If Hillary would have been expected by all sides to win by double digits and Barack pulled out a miracle. I'd want the voting machines investigated too. This isn't about candidates. It's about democracy. You been around lately??
Emmit @ 101:
And if you are in a jungle, with a machette, you can also hack through the undergrowth
Charisma: Obama advantage, no doubt here.
Experience: Slight Hillary advantage, no doubt she's seen more nationally and internationally with a lifetime near to Bill. She was engaged in policy debates as well not just picking china patterns and new curtains.
Policies: Not much difference
Other considerations: A Clinton victory in the general makes the rightwing eat shit and die.
Its solid, real charisma versus a genuine, if modest, experience advantage. A President could use both so its a hard call. I'm happy either way.
The voting situation hasn't been solved by either party in power because they don't want it to be solved. Bottom line. It benefits the establishment in both parties.
I could be wrong. I often am. But, I've always gotten the impression that NH was a rock-ribbed mainstream leaning to conservative independent state. Not a place where Edward's populist message could gain much traction as it could in Iowa. Neo-con loathing of Senator Clinton aside, I posit that rock-ribbed mainstream leaning to conservative independent women probably feel pretty comfortable with her. Obama suffered from lack of substance. And NH is McCain territory. No real surprises there folks.
Look, it ain't over till it's over. Edwards is not running that far behind in number of delegates and frankly that is what counts.
It is still a three-way race on the democratic side. Get over it.
Dont forget.....
WE STILL have to Keep a CLOSE Watch on those Secretary of States and those election anomalies...
We still have not forgotten...
"Ohio 2004 Presidential Election Ballots Illegally Destroyed, Missing in At Least 56 of 88 Counties..."
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4901
But there are good people on it...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
http://www.bradblog.com
http://www.votersunite.org
Make no mistake...
The "Help America Vote Act of 2002" was put into place in 2002 DURING BUSH and is STILL in place.
including those Diebold op-scan machines.... the exact same ones that were hacked in the documentary.
http://www.hackingdemocracy.com
2008:
--> Keep a close watch on those Secretary of States and those election anomalies
I'm not saying that there's treachery afoot, but the nefarious forces at Diebold certainly had motive and opportunity. If Obama wins NH, the talking heads start screaming about a runaway, and everybody falls in line behind Obama. The way it went down (even if he did improve markedly over his polling a few weeks ago), allows the media to take potshots at the dems while they duke it out.
If Obama is going to beat Clinton he's going to have to change his strategy.
The "Feeling Groovy" strategy isn't going to work.
Orangutan. @ 107:
Your hypothetical is what I'd expect from someone whose candidate, I assume, lost.
Booooohoooo. Blame the machines and discount the voters .
In this Wild and Crazy '08 campaign, where 'CHANGE' is the Magic Buzz Word,
has anyone noticed that McCain's mantra is
'SAME OLD, SAME OLD'?
Really, really, OLD!
Bubba, the only problem with your analysis is that the rightwing gets to vote, too.
Also, Senator Obama in fact has far more legislative and political experience than Hillary or Edwards. You don't see him breaking down on the campaign trail, nor does he need powerful unions (although he is getting some today) or a famous spouse to win.
I think it is a good thing that Hillary won. Now, perhaps Barack will provide some specifics as to what he will do as president instead of just flowery phrases. I will vote for any Dem in November, but prefer Mrs. Clinton. I think Hillary would be so far superior to Bill as president it would make heads spin.
Orangutan. @ 107:
Do live in New Hampshire? Its funny that so far all the people who post here who are from New Hampshire, Have said there has never been any issue with voting machins or vote rigging. People voted and your guy didn't do as well as the bullshit MSM said, so you jump to the thing was rigged. WOW!
If people aren't willing to stand up for transparent, voter verified paper trails and random audits etc in our voting systems. We are more doomed than I ever thought. It just seems obvious. Think of the people who have fought and died for this democracy and our rights to have votes counted. This isn't some god given right we can take for granted. Stand up for the country.
Why is everyone complaining about 'Voting Machines', when we have
'Automatons' running as candidates?
Doggiebobo @ 99:
Hum, what does this remind me of? Let me see....
Oh that is right, this brings me all the way back to 2000: Cry babies, Bush won, Get over it (tm)
The more things change....
Orangutan. @ 120:
Won't anyone help being a defeatist.
George (~Bush) @ 117:
Plus, he can unite the country, since he has supported Yea, Nay, and Present, in contrast to the pure Yea vs Nay crowd.
(Sorry. Couldn't help it.)
L.A. Confidential @ 123:
Meant won't hep anyone being a defeatist.
L.A. Confidential @ 125:
Never mind. Obviously my brain is completely dysfunctional this morning.
DanteMN @ 103:
Who is this "people of color" you refer to?
I'm going to question if there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. And I'm going to question our Voting Process. When leaders lie to me about war and steal elections. I'm going to question them. That's my right, and some say duty, as a citizen.
L.A. Confidential @ 126:
Nurse, 20cc of coffee stat!
Preacher Boob @ 77:
OMFG...
I've been home sick for four days now and read this and hacked up a really, really(!) good one on that. Thanks :)
NH doesn't represent the state of the nation like Iowa. Any literally white-bread state which is so desperate, that they elect a black man, is in a helluva lot more economic pain than a random East Coast state of yuppies. Hillary can perform her dog-and-pony shows there all she wants, but working class families who have to deal with a broken health care system and relatives going off to Iraq aren't going to buy it. It's like what happened in '06, when everyone else was voting anti-war, and CT picked Lieberman. That state had no bearing on the final outcome.
DanteMN @ 103:
When did they let you out?
Mr Pelicano @ 57:
so how do you explain Edwards walking his talk by not taking Pac Money. Repeating that he will not have any lobbyist in his administration and no individuals who have ever lobbied for a foreign nation. This is the most radical thing that has been said during the debates and he backs this up by not taking Pac Money and being the only one to bring up those who lied our nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq by name.
What does Edwards stand to win by constantly bringing up extreme poverty (they do not vote)? What does Edwards stand to win by going up against corporate greed? Hell the MSM and even the so called "progressive" media (go listen to Amy Goodman's program yesterday and Air Americas owner Mark Greens recent program 7 days in America coverage of the Iowa outcome and the upcoming vote in New Hampshire) Edwards was basically excluded.
Go listen to Mark Greens Jan 6th program. Fair and Balanced. I don't think so. Green excluded Edwards
http://www.airamerica.com/7daysinamerica/node/19
Listen to Amy Goodman's program from Tuesday. Fair and Balanced? I don't think so. She ignores Edwards (this is the first time I have ever criticized Amy goodman) Go listen for yourselves
http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2008/1/8
Why isn't anyone talking about Wyoming?
i will happily vote for whichever democrat wins the nomination. i like hillary, but i'd be just as happy with obama or edwards. for me, it's a matter of winning the white house because any of our candidates is better than anything the republicans have to offer.
Diebold had nothing to do with the Election Results in New Hampshire!
That is because there is no more Diebold. They changed there name to Premiere.
The Dude @ 122:
No, in 2000 the S/C annointed/appointed/selected bush-lite as the winner; HE did not
win; but was awarded the seat because, according to those idiots counting the votes
in Florida, the hanging shads were used as a basic..
NH had an opportunity to make history and cast a vote for change. They failed. There are 48 States remaining (46 if they don't count FL and MI) and I hope these upcoming states will show NH what a real vote for change looks like.
okieguy @ 80:
It's not a conspiracy when the facts are that the last few elections, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 have been shown to have been RIGGED in several states. In fact, people are beginning to go to prison. You can not "SPIN" facts like this. Scrutiny should be welcomed in an "OPEN DEMOCRACY".
Kathleen @ 84:
About those "IRANIAN" boats... If you look at the video, the US Navy identified them as "UNIDENTIFIED" boats. Yet the media repeats the propaganda line, "IRANIAN" boats.
dayankee @ 135:
Bush et al have set the expectations so low, that at this point an inert object like a can of soda for example, would do a better job as a president by just standing there doing nothing.
However, I think it is a serious precedent for a nation that crowned itself as the "#1 nation in the world, Land of the Free home of the Brave (tm) America Fuck Yeah!" to have allowed itself to be ruled by lowest common denominator.
I guess like any major empire, now we enter the phase in which we end up being ruled by inbred blue bloods with severe cases of mental retardation and rampant hemophilia. Hopefully, we should have the revolution with them pitch forks and torches not to far from now. Because, if we follow the empire line... we are about to find out what hitting rock bottom feels like.
HappySurge @ 6:
That's a really nice thing to say about someone's mother/grandmother.
Doggiebobo @ 137:
And the point flew over your head at supersonic speed.... woooooosssssshhhhhhhhh
Max-1 @ 139:
I think you meant Open Democracy (c).
Max-1 @ 139:
Who say's there is no scrutiny in the voting process in New Hampshire? Because of what you have show what happened in past elections. The democratic party will make sure that doesn't happen again. If you are suggesting that dems are now vote rigging show us some facts. I have a hard time seeing dems, who where the one who where fucked in the last 2 elections using the same tactics.
My two cents. I watched Senator Obama talk in NH on C-Span the day before yesterday. He had a pretty big crowd but it was apparent that this was not a district that favored him as they didn't have that 'fired up, ready to go' energy you see in his districts.
Something he kept doing really bothered me -- he kept referring to the win in Iowa and talking about how New Hampshire had a chance to keep the momentum going. I was thinking that if I lived in New Hampshire, I wouldn't necessarily want to be tied in that way to Iowa. It's like comparing your previous spouse to your current one -- the current one doesn't want that comparison.
I don't think he won over that particular crowd.
earl @ 86:
You call this Stewart carving up Frum? Come on Frum brought us the "axis of evil" Frum pushed hard for the invasion of Iraq and continues to push hard for military action in Iran, and this is all Stewart can muster. You call this carving?
When Stewart lays into the Kristols and Frums of the world the way he laid into Matthews then Stewart is dishing it out fairly. But Stewart has not and does not do dish it out fairly.
Go watch that clip again. This is carving Frum up?
then go watch Stewart interrupt and carve up Matthews
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=104548&title=chris...
href="http://">
Compare his interview with Kristol (there are many of them)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=91495&title=bill-kristol
Stewart knows how to carve up a guest. He does not carve up Kristol and Frum the same way he carved up Matthews. Just who helped start that war in Iraq? Just who should Stewart be cutting into more deeply?
come on go check out Stewarts interviews with Kristol? He plays Mr. nice guy but not with Matthews. He even excused himself for interrupting Frum patted him on the wrist and allowed Frum to go on.
I could probably live with either Obama or Clinton, but something seems amiss here. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist it's hard to believe that a dozen pollsters -- all of whom had Obama ahead by double digits -- could have gotten the Obama/Clinton numbers so wrong when they were dead-on right on all the rest of the numbers. I hope somebody is comparing the NH paper votes to the Diebold machine votes.
The Dude @ 143:
Correction: And it flew over your pointed head.
California_Guy @ 118:
If you actually cared, you could find this out with about 1 minute of googling.
Login or Register to post comments.