New Hampshire primary stolen for Hillary Clinton?

[Ron Ecker]

Here are two links raising the possibility that fraud through Diebold electronic voting machines accounts for the "stunning" upset victory of Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the New Hampshire presidential primary.

Everyone thought she was finished after the loss in Iowa, and the expected loss in New Hampshire would have been the nail in her campaign's coffin. But surprise! The Clintons ride again!

These Diebold machines have been publicly demonstrated to be hackable, yet the American voting system goes right on using them.

The head of Diebold is famous for saying before the 2004 presidential election that he would do everything in his power to see that George W. Bush was reelected. A little conflict of interest? Not an eyebrow raised in the mainstream media about this comment by the man behind the machines.

Presscue

MediaChannel

Edited January 11, 2008 by Ron Ecker

[Dave Greer]

Here are two links raising the possibility that fraud through Diebold electronic voting machines accounts for the "stunning" upset victory of Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in the New Hampshire presidential primary.

Everyone thought she was finished after the loss in Iowa, and the expected loss in New Hampshire would have been the nail in her campaign's coffin. But surprise! The Clintons ride again!

These Diebold machines have been publicly demonstrated to be hackable, yet the American voting system goes right on using them.

The head of Diebold is famous for saying before the 2004 presidential election that he would do everything in his power to see that George W. Bush was reelected. A little conflict of interest? Not an eyebrow raised in the mainstream media about this comment by the man behind the machines.

Presscue

MediaChannel

Never trust electronic machines. (I should know, I work in IT). Especially when it comes to something as important as our basic democratic right - having our votes counted, and having our votes count.

I say use a good old-fashioned pencil tick on a piece of paper, dropped into a box, and counted by a genuine, bona fide person. The system may be fallible, but there's less chance not only of large-scale fraud, but also the accusation of large-scale fraud, which is almost as damaging.

[John Simkin]

I suppose it is possible that the vote was rigged. However, there are two other factors that could explain Clinton’s surprise victory.

Exit polls show that there was a dramatic swing by women voters towards Clinton over the last couple of days. Two possible reasons for this:

Gender: (i) Clinton got close to tears when asked about the pressure of running for office. This was interpreted as someone who was suffering for the good of her country. This “emotion” apparently went down well with women voters. (ii) A couple of men held up anti-feminist placards “Iron my Shirt”. This allowed Clinton to raise the issue of sexism. This again went down with women voters. (It is assumed by some political commentators that the men were “Clinton plants).

Race: White people were willing to tell pollsters that they intended to vote for Barack Obama. However, when it came to a secret ballot, they could not bring themselves to vote for a black man.

A Republican strategist told the BBC that the American electorate is not ready for a black or female president. As far as the Republicans are concerned, they will win the election if Clinton or Obama is elected.

As an outsider I think it is a good thing that it is going to be a close race between Clinton and Obama. So far they have been far too vague on policy issues. Maybe they will now have to be more specific about their proposals.

[Ron Ecker]

Thanks to Dennis Kucinich, there will apparently be a recount, even though Kucinich himself got only 2 percent of the vote.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080111/D8U3EBKG0.html

[Evan Burton]

I don't know didley about electronic voting machines in the US, but I'd agree with Dave.

I mark my ballot forms, and they go into the ballot box to be counted. I'd be very wary of electronic voting.

[Guest David Guyatt]

I'll add my piece and say it was a stunning turnaround. Even Clinton and her team expected her to get heavily clobbered.

I also concur with Dave and Evan. Voting machines should be immediately outlawed. But they are to become an increasing feature of UK elections, it seems.

But I am not entirely happy with the old paper and pencil method used in the UK either. As a matter of course, I don't vote. But I made an exception (silly me in retrospect) a few years ago and noted that when I entered the polling station I was handed a ballot paper after I had been asked to identify myself. My identity was checked on the voting register and a number then handwritten in pencil on the stub of the ballot paper. Both the stub and the ballot paper contained a unique printed number. In other words the vote I made could easily be traced back to me directly. I complained and was told that I should take up the matter with the returning officer at my local council offices. The option then was to vote or not to vote. I spoiled the vote and left.

So much for secrecy of your vote.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I suppose it is possible that the vote was rigged. However, there are two other factors that could explain Clinton’s surprise victory.

Exit polls show that there was a dramatic swing by women voters towards Clinton over the last couple of days. Two possible reasons for this:

Gender: (i) Clinton got close to tears when asked about the pressure of running for office. This was interpreted as someone who was suffering for the good of her country. This “emotion” apparently went down well with women voters. (ii) A couple of men held up anti-feminist placards “Iron my Shirt”. This allowed Clinton to raise the issue of sexism. This again went down with women voters. (It is assumed by some political commentators that the men were “Clinton plants).

Race: White people were willing to tell pollsters that they intended to vote for Barack Obama. However, when it came to a secret ballot, they could not bring themselves to vote for a black man.

Either of the two rationales offered by JS above, or a combination thereof, might explain part of the rather surprising result in New Hampshire. The pre-primary polls varied wildly, with some predicting a massive rout by Obama, while more moderate polls suggested a close race. I dismissed the former as exaggerated and the latter as more indicative of what I thought would transpire.

However, the pre-primary polls are not the issue; the exit polling of voters is far more indicative of what should have transpired with actual votes on the ground. There remains a glaring disparity between which candidate the voters claimed to have just voted for, and for which candidate those votes ended up being tallied. This is the critical issue.

In smaller, rural areas [about 20% of the state's precincts], paper ballots were counted by hand, and the final tallies reflected accurately what the exit polls indicated. In the remainder of the state, where Diebold optical scanners were used to count the ballots, the votes on the ground conflicted with what the exit polls - also favouring Obama - indicated.

Consequently, we again see precisely what transpired during the last federal election cycle in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In that instance, John Kerry outpolled George Bush by about 3 percentage points in the exit polls, yet the votes on the ground, when tallied, had Bush leading Kerry by about the same margin. This means a discrepancy of about 6% between where voters claimed their votes went and where they ended up being found. If New Hampshire suddenly decided en masse to bolt from Obama and rush toward Clinton, presumably the hand-counted ballots would have reflected such a move. They do not; only the machine-counted ballots demonstrate such a pattern. There is no logical non-sinister, non-criminal rationale for such a disparity.

In fact, as part of its protocols the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe - a branch of which monitors national elections to ensure fairness in the outcome - infers a disparity between exit polling results and votes on the ground as prima facie indication of electoral fraud. Were they to have observed the New Hampshire primary, they would have suspected fraud had taken place. Dennis Kucinich certainly does, which is what has led him to send a cheque to pay for the recount that he has requested. In the event that a recount confirms electoral chicanery has taken place, we will have an interesting kettle of fish, indeed.

A Republican strategist told the BBC that the American electorate is not ready for a black or female president. As far as the Republicans are concerned, they will win the election if Clinton or Obama is elected.

Which is precisely why people should ask themselves why a state that favoured Obama in virtually all pre-primary polls, and whose citizenry told exit-pollers that they had voted for Obama in greater numbers than Clinton, ended up awarding Obama's chief rival. I note that Peter Lemkin predicted: "This could be REALLY interesting IF there is a recount and it shows fraud!....real interesting...could cost Ms. Clinton her shot at the Presidentcy." This presupposes that any electoral shenanigans were orchestrated by her campaign on her behalf. Yet the Clinton machine has no ties to Diebold, a Republican-inclined organization, and - absent proof to the contrary - had no means of manipulating the result on her behalf to her benefit.

Whereas, it would certainly be in the best interests of any Republican candidate in the upcoming federal contest to run against the weakest possible Democrat opponent. Given her high negative ratings with voters, and the fact that current polling inidicates she would lose the general election to any of the current Republican prospective candidates, one would think the Republicans would salivate at the possibility of her becoming the Democatic Party's nominee. I also note that Ron Ecker, as is his wont, was meticulous in wording the heading of this thread: "Stolen For Hillary Clinton," rather than "Stolen By Hillary Clinton."

As an outsider I think it is a good thing that it is going to be a close race between Clinton and Obama. So far they have been far too vague on policy issues. Maybe they will now have to be more specific about their proposals.

Both have been expert at promulgating bumper sticker sloganeering, rather than talking policy points with any substance. Meanwhile, John Edwards - who does outline in greater detail just what needs be done - trails badly. [Not that I would ever expect Edwards to actually enact anything he promises... but then, I'm a cynical old bastard who expects politicians to lie for votes and then repudiate their promises upon being elected. By and large, that's been the record in my country, and elsewhere, by my own observation. I hope to live long enough to be proved wrong, eventually.]

[Ron Ecker]

In the event that a recount confirms electoral chicanery has taken place, we will have an interesting kettle of fish, indeed.

This may depend on whether or not a recount itself is subject to fraud. I have no idea what the procedure is, but would guess that if there was fraud in the election, those who perpetrated it had to consider that there might be a recount, and would be prepared for it. But I'm just speculating.

[John Simkin]

Which is precisely why people should ask themselves why a state that favoured Obama in virtually all pre-primary polls, and whose citizenry told exit-pollers that they had voted for Obama in greater numbers than Clinton, ended up awarding Obama's chief rival. I note that Peter Lemkin predicted: "This could be REALLY interesting IF there is a recount and it shows fraud!....real interesting...could cost Ms. Clinton her shot at the Presidentcy." This presupposes that any electoral shenanigans were orchestrated by her campaign on her behalf. Yet the Clinton machine has no ties to Diebold, a Republican-inclined organization, and - absent proof to the contrary - had no means of manipulating the result on her behalf to her benefit.

Whereas, it would certainly be in the best interests of any Republican candidate in the upcoming federal contest to run against the weakest possible Democrat opponent. Given her high negative ratings with voters, and the fact that current polling inidicates she would lose the general election to any of the current Republican prospective candidates, one would think the Republicans would salivate at the possibility of her becoming the Democatic Party's nominee. I also note that Ron Ecker, as is his wont, was meticulous in wording the heading of this thread: "Stolen For Hillary Clinton," rather than "Stolen By Hillary Clinton."

This is a good point. It has to be remembered that Nixon's dirty tricks was mainly concerned with trying to arrange a Democratic candidate that the Republicans knew that they could beat.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Further to my post above, the site below has a comprehensive breakdown of voting patterns in each district, delineated by hand-counted ballots versus optical scanner-counted ballots.

No prizes awarded to those who can spot the pattern that emerges by comparing the two.

http://checkthevotes.com/index.php?party=DEMOCRATS

[Scott Deitche]

Which is precisely why people should ask themselves why a state that favoured Obama in virtually all pre-primary polls, and whose citizenry told exit-pollers that they had voted for Obama in greater numbers than Clinton, ended up awarding Obama's chief rival. I note that Peter Lemkin predicted: "This could be REALLY interesting IF there is a recount and it shows fraud!....real interesting...could cost Ms. Clinton her shot at the Presidentcy." This presupposes that any electoral shenanigans were orchestrated by her campaign on her behalf. Yet the Clinton machine has no ties to Diebold, a Republican-inclined organization, and - absent proof to the contrary - had no means of manipulating the result on her behalf to her benefit.

Whereas, it would certainly be in the best interests of any Republican candidate in the upcoming federal contest to run against the weakest possible Democrat opponent. Given her high negative ratings with voters, and the fact that current polling inidicates she would lose the general election to any of the current Republican prospective candidates, one would think the Republicans would salivate at the possibility of her becoming the Democatic Party's nominee. I also note that Ron Ecker, as is his wont, was meticulous in wording the heading of this thread: "Stolen For Hillary Clinton," rather than "Stolen By Hillary Clinton."

This is a good point. It has to be remembered that Nixon's dirty tricks was mainly concerned with trying to arrange a Democratic candidate that the Republicans knew that they could beat.

As maybe the only registered Republican on this board, or at least the only one who admits it, there is no weak candidate for the Republicans to beat. And a CLinton/Obama ticket will really be an "unstoppable force." Giuliani, probably the best candidate to bring over independents, has been running an unorthodox campaign, and its too early to tell if that will be enough to get him the nomination. The Republicans only other "hope" is McCain. Romeny, Huckabee et al. are too divisive.

Ron Paul plays the outsider card very well, but if he truly cared about his positions he would bolt for a third party, because he does not have nearly enough support for the party nomination.

On the hackable machines, Florida governor Charlie Crist signed a bill for a paper trail for your votes from the electronic machines. It's a step in the right direction.

[Ron Ecker]

It has been a hypothesis of mine that the Bush-Clinton cycle that has revolved through the White House ever since 1988 (even earlier if you consider that Bush was running the show under Reagan) reflects an executive power-sharing agreement sanctioned by the powers that be, a deal probably struck back in Bill Clinton's days as Arkansas governor, helping out the CIA with its drug-running through Mena. Under this hypothesis, it's the Clintons' turn in the White House again, and if the New Hampshire vote was stolen, it could have been by the powers that be who are simply upholding their end of the deal, and will continue to do so through ever how many rigged votes are necessary to get these vermin back in the White House.

[Christopher Hall]

It has been a hypothesis of mine that the Bush-Clinton cycle that has revolved through the White House ever since 1988 (even earlier if you consider that Bush was running the show under Reagan) reflects an executive power-sharing agreement sanctioned by the powers that be, a deal probably struck back in Bill Clinton's days as Arkansas governor, helping out the CIA with its drug-running through Mena. Under this hypothesis, it's the Clintons' turn in the White House again, and if the New Hampshire vote was stolen, it could have been by the powers that be who are simply upholding their end of the deal, and will continue to do so through ever how many rigged votes are necessary to get these vermin back in the White House.

I could agree...or I could post a photo...while of Bush the corrupt, the elder..no matter....I'll post the photo.....

Peter-

You should really warn us before you post pictures of sexual predators (WJC).

I doubt that RFK, Jr. will investigate the NH primary, like he did the Ohio 2004 vote, because Kerry Kennedy, RFK, Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend are supporting HRC.

It's really rather sad that this is what the Kennedy family has come to represent.

[John Simkin]

Rebekah Wade, the editor of the Sun, a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, made an interesting statement before a House of Lords committee looking into the UK media this week. Wade claimed that Murdoch called her at 1.30 am on the day of the New Hampshire primaries to warn her that the exit polls were wrong and that Clinton would beat Obama. I wonder how he knew the exit polls were wrong?