READER COMMENTS ON
"AUDIO: Brad on this Morning's Stephanie Miller Show"
(58 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:36 pm PT...
why is it so hard to have transparent and verifiable elections???
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:39 pm PT...
You know, I have had it with Marcos' dogmatic, very arrogant and often quite ignorant attacks. He does this Fox News style ridicule routine on others too, all the time. If you are desperate to become a party hack yourself nothing gets you more social points than a vicious personal attack on the left. Brad Friedman is certainly not a crackpot, Ralph Nader is not an idiot and Dennis Kucinich does not scold people any more than Marcos does. I have just removed The Daily KOS from my list. Anything of importance at that site can be found elsewhere. I don’t need to support that shit anymore.
I love your work, Brad. You are amazing.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:48 pm PT...
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:12 pm PT...
There is only one crackpot here, and its me (The new world order has to be birthed into place by a woman, ie Hilary, see...., I couldn't help myself). And I'm not even remotely affiliated with Brad.
Being that we all have to play with this shitty rigged system of nontransparent vote counting maybe we need a different approach.
we know that we can't actually watch the votes being counted. The exit polls keep being run by a less then perfect company. And gathering all info during the actual vote day seems to be tough.
Maybe it's possible to use a 2nd or 3rd or 4th exit poll group at some of the larger precincts.
Maybe we add a second vote, not a poll (something physical), at some locations (kinda like a checksum, for downloads)
Maybe we can break into teams, some people gather info and some go through it.
Maybe we enlist a warlock to use a magical seeing stone to gain results.
or maybe we just deprive brad of food and sleep, give him war paint and sick him on the vote counters
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:16 pm PT...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:16 pm PT...
Look like they want to keep the Status Quo in office, Obama is no Kucinich, but Hillary is more like Bush. Remember, Hillary has taken money from Rupert Murdoch. That's a big red flag there. If Hillary keeps winning these close races, somethings in the air and it doesn't smell good at all.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:24 pm PT...
Is this guy full of shit, or what?
By Josh Marshall
I was going to write a post like this. But I'm glad someone else has done it better than I could (see this diary up at Daily Kos). In the wake of the stunning results out of New Hampshire on Tuesday night, I've gotten more emails than I care to admit claiming that the only reasonable explanation for the discrepancy between the polls and the results is that the voting machines were 'hacked'.
There is so much screwed up about this reaction that it's difficult to know what part of the perversity to grab on to. (For a discussion of the factual and logical errors behind the claims of hacking, see the post I linked to above.) First is the notion that public opinion surveys and even exit poll data is so reliable that any substantial discrepancy between those numbers and the official result is prima facie evidence of tampering. That is simply absurd.
There is also something perverse about the quick knee-jerk reaction to assume that any election that dramatically doesn't go your way was stolen. It stems from the same fidelity to assumption and desire over fact that so many of us have excoriated in the present administration. There is a sullen childishness at work in this thinking that no robust political movement can ever be built on.
Now, before you write in, I too think that electronic voting machines with no paper trail are a big problem because they're too insecure and they make confirmatory recounts impossible. But the possibility or danger of tampering is not a license to assume it or imagine it --- in the absence of any evidence --- any time the vote doesn't go how we'd like.
"There is so much screwed up about this reaction that it's difficult to know what part of the perversity to grab on to."
Josh Marshall thinks it's "perverse" to suspect the count on proven insecure e-vote machines can possibly be wrong!
"First is the notion that public opinion surveys and even exit poll data is so reliable that any substantial discrepancy between those numbers and the official result is prima facie evidence of tampering. "
See Plunger's excellent comment in another thread, that that's what the Rovians want to do, is discredit exit polls and not the proven hackable machines.
"There is also something perverse about the quick knee-jerk reaction to assume that any election that dramatically doesn't go your way was stolen."
FALSE! I hate both of them! I'm concerned about the count not being right! Not who the candidates are!
"Now, before you write in..."
Why would I write an email to Josh Marshall???
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:25 pm PT...
Markos is a blogger.
Brad's a blogger/journalist/reporter.
The exhaustive research here is real hard work, over there, it's mostly opinions, sometimes prescient, sometimes prejudiced.
But there is a differnece between blogs, and bloggers, and we are now experiencing one of the most obvious. Some are just chatrooms where opinions flourish, and no specific cause is embraced, that's KOS.
Others are sources of information, research and facts, that's Bradblog.
Still both bloggers, just different functions and purposes.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
Bob In Pacifica
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:28 pm PT...
As I have said, this thing doesn't just disappear. If there is a verifiable recount I'd be satisfied, but I suspect foul play. I don't think that Clinton rigged this election (because the upside is small to the downside in case of disclosure, but if the election was rigged, as is suggested by the disparity between polls, the hand-count and the Diebold part of the election, I would suggest that it is a time bomb that can and will be used against Clinton.
Clinton supporters should hope that this gets resolved, otherwise their candidate will be damaged later on.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:36 pm PT...
As for Josh, he's always been a very conservative blogger, as far as wild accusations go (no matter how valid or well-defended), and we need that on "the blogs" or it would all become just that, nothing but wild speculation.
But Josh ignores his own evidence when he relates how many people are communicating their doubts about the NH vote being valid. My point is, if there is that much concern among the rank and file, might it not be wiser to at least ponder their concerns rather than dismiss them? We've been right before...
The first approach, if you want to be cautious, would be to keep an open mind. Mine was open until I started counting the number of repetitive numbers in those polls, way too many quirky figures for my suspicious blood.
So I am joining the suspecters in this one, I think we all need to know for certain, and anyone who seems incredibly averse to that simple solution (this is NH, not Florida or California, a recount would be quite do-able).
Josh isn't naysaying here, folks, it seems to be his nature to take the sure path, unlike people like Palast, who prefer to let their noses lead them to the carcass.
Josh, Brad and Markos are all taking a different angle on it, which is more proof that the blogs aren't in lockstep at all.
And all the better.
As for me, I think something stinks in NH. And Brad's on the trail of what may become the next Florda 13.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:43 pm PT...
Don't worry about the naysayers Brad, about 6 or 7 of us got yer back dood
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:43 pm PT...
Good interview Brad.
The longer this goes on, the harder it will be to bring our system back in line with Constitutional Law and democratic ideals.
I fear it is too late. That only a collapse of the system can bring about change. And that I believe would take a generation or more.
I can't think of any nation that went from despotism to democracy without some form of revolution. History is rife with examples of nations revolutionizing themselves from despot to despot.
For the entire life of the Bush administration, the government has been maneuvering to oppose action from the people. The US Gov is treating it's own citizens and the enemy and looks to be preparing to occupy the US as a foreign power. It as if the occupation in Iraq is on it's way to becoming our model at home.
With the financial sector imploding and every sign that a new depression is kicking in, I can see why our owners want to take decisive control over the voting process. They don't want a hero rising through the ranks.
A Hillary vs. McCain showdown will utterly divide our nation. When they pick McCain the divisiveness will be so thick, that people will generally accept the outcome.
Our owners do not want a candidate that would capture the hearts and minds of the voters. As that candidate won't represent their interests.
The USA is entering a dark period. Our owners understand that they need to get ahead of the crisis. They won't unrig the vote.
They need to divide our nation against itself.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:47 pm PT...
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:49 pm PT...
The REAL "crackpots" are the people AFRAID of REALITY! They're AFRAID that it's too SCAREY to REALIZE elections are being stolen!
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:52 pm PT...
Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone explain to me why the exit pollsters match their "raw" results with the "actual" vote counts and then come up with "final" exit poll results? How long have they been doing this?
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:53 pm PT...
Re-posting and reiterating for those reading this site:
This is not about Candidate A winning or Candidate B losing. This is solely about the hackable, unsecure voting machines (optical scan in NH) that have been investigated and proven to be crap and yet are still deployed to count the majority of elections in this country.
Whenever and wherever there is a discrepancy with electronic voting machines involved --- no matter how big or small the race, no matter if it's Repub or Dem --- Voting Integrity advocates look into it. It's what they do.
Please do not assume or assign motives, intentions, or conclusions to anyone here that are not EXPLICITLY stated. Brad makes crystal clear that he doesn't care who won or lost, just that the results are ACCURATE. Period.
The site owner is not responsible for the opinions of commenters in this open forum. No endorsement of commenters' opinions is either intended or implied.
In addition, please note that The Brad Blog does not allege that fraud (or "rigging") has actually occurred --- only that the results of any contest that incorporates electronic voting systems should be subject to exacting scrutiny and independent verification prior to certification.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:55 pm PT...
Brad, would you please try to get on national progressive shows... Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, Ring of Fire and all the rest of Air America programming.
I agree that NH may have some problems. It is a small state & if there is a problem it should be nipped in the bud!
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:01 pm PT...
OK. So obviously someone with the authority to do so needs to look into this, but probably won’t. So does anyone out there know what the chances are that Super Tuesday is going to be just as bad? Do all of those states use the Deibold machines too, and does the Clinton Machine have leverage there like they do in NH?
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:18 pm PT...
My district uses Diebold for counting ballots.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:21 pm PT...
'If' the vote the vote was rigged, Clinton doesn't have to be behind it.
Other groups have an interest in who wins the Democratic Primaries. There are people outside the Democratic Party that may have their own reasons for influencing the election.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:28 pm PT...
Now if this was a movie, Brad would be played by Goldblum, Bev by Kathy Bates and Alex Jones by Cartman.
What would they do next? They would rig the Super Tuesday to make it 100% Kucinich and Paul.
Now would THAT be a movie huh?
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:29 pm PT...
When you think about it people who rail against verified elections are actually supporting fascism. They are like supporters of a totalitarian regime.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:32 pm PT...
I didn’t necessarily mean to imply that the Clinton team specifically was behind any vote rigging. I agree that other interested parties also have a vested interest in who wins. But judging by the results from NH, I’d have to assume that interested party wants Clinton to be the dem nominee. I guess I’m just interested in knowing whether whoever was behind this has the ability to repeat the results in ten more states on Super Tuesday.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
Bob In Pacifica
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:50 pm PT...
In 2004 all fingers pointed to the Republicans stealing votes. Imagine in October if it turns out that Clinton is the candidate and someone finally "uncovers" fraud in the NH primary. This is the narrative:
Democrats steal votes too. Hillary is a thief.
Right now without an honest verification of the vote count things are perfectly set up to damage Clinton and Democrats this fall.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:58 pm PT...
Aint this a classic example of human nature; when things heat up people start attacking people instead of the problem of unsecured voting systems. How damn typical. Thanks for staying focused Brad and Des!
Shit yeah, I think I finally got that colon, semicolon thing down, or did I?
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:03 pm PT...
only a canidate can ask for a recount, brad has a bit of clout,he should ask dennis k to open the black boxes for us
obama lost manchester after the crowds at the apolla theater seemed to love him..and btw if im reading the results correctly the same 12 wards of manchester that loved hillary and hated obama also supported romney
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:06 pm PT...
All this argument why?
Because electronics are invisible, and scanners are well known to make mistakes. Those are two facts nobody will question. These problems are based in physics itself.
But the reason, the real reason here why everyone is arguing is because, of the absolute refusal to count paper ballots by hand in a timely enough fashion to actually effect the outcome.
Sure they'll count paper ballots after the wrong choice is made, sure they'll count ballots if you come up with some ridiculous amount of cash. But by the actual time that this is allowed to happen it's too late.
It's like saying okay let's audit our system that's been running with no firewall for two years, oh hey there are root-kits in there, and they're running the CPU to 100%. I wonder how that could have happened? I guess all those people that had trouble with spam in their mail really had valid complaints, I guess all those people that couldn't load their websites were right. Oh but too bad, that was then this is now, we already spent your money. If your business failed because of it there's nothing we can do.
Back in the election world, candidates get sworn in with no recourse even if evidence surfaces after the fact.
This whole thing is shifting the time of the results long enough to create a perception. Everyone that delays this should be ashamed of themselves for helping to destroy the constitutional right to vote. I even go one up, everyone that delays accurate validated results should be considered a criminal. Everyone that was elected after the crime should be removed from power.
I can't believe what I heard on Stephanie Miller, Ed Shultz, and then Randy Rhodes today. You would think they actually care about validating results instead of taking someone's word when already it's been shown that there are validated errors!!!
Errors are like insects, where there's one error there's more nearby.
Electronics are not perfect, parts burn up, people exploit code, paper can be scanned wrong. When real people count paper with oversight this problem goes away. Real people can see real paper, but real people can not see electronic signals. They can try to hook up logic analyzers and test but the fact remains they can't actually see the signals, there are a plethora of things that can go wrong.
Another thing is the chips. Where were they made, what materials were they made of, who was involved in the doping process, were there any logic bombs or anomalous logic added in at the doping level (like adding a radio controlled logic switch), are spectrum analyzers and technicians monitoring every polling place, did the power supply have any glitches, who programmed the code, did they leave problems, backdoors, open networks, worms.
This is why electronics that tabulate votes is a abusive technology, it's an unconstitutional technology. If all electronics were used for was to print a paper ballot to be hand counted with public oversight these problems would go away. On a bad day with no electricity, a couple reams of blank paper and pencils would be all that was needed in a pinch.
If these people that refuse to count votes are allowed to continue their agenda, our constitution will never be restored. The troops will never come home from Iraq, the economy will get worse, the poor will be worse off, there will never be health care, the dollar will become the Amero.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:15 pm PT...
Because electronics are a new technology introduced to tabulate votes, there should not be some old outdated requirement that the candidates request a recount.
What we have right now is unvalidated insanity, with no sanity check. No validation of results, and a boatload of officials that refuse to do their jobs. Or when they give the perception of doing their job, it's after the fact, and anything they are able to do is not going to change anything.
There will never be any change with this system in place, there will never be a "we the people" say anything ever again with this system.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:25 pm PT...
NH is a tiny state & it's fairly easy to count the paper.
I was in NH & saw many more Obama voters than Clinton. In fact, one hour before the polls closed a Hillary campaign insider told me she would be satisfied with a 3% percentage point loss.
If I was Obama I would quietly form a voter fraud team & recount the paper in NH & more importantly have a team looking forward to prevent any shenaningins.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:26 pm PT...
My guess is that "DHinMI" (as well as Marcos) are CIA. That they would set up a "progressive" website and undermine anyone that gets too close for comfort to the truth would not surprise me in the least-
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:48 pm PT...
BD, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I really think somebody should sit down and have a long talk with Josh Marshall. It seems as though it ought really to be only a matter of getting him to concentrate on a few facts.
As for Kos, I don't think there's any hope of speaking sense to him... since he so clearly --- to me anyway --- seems to think he is the arbiter of sense....
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:57 pm PT...
Great. They're a pretty amazing lot, really. I thought I was reading Redstate.org
What a bunch of chumps. And this Dhinmhi (?) character seems to have no idea what he/she is talking about. Using NH in 2004 is entirely specious. There was no exit poll discrepancies in NH-2004. NH is hardly considered a crucial swing state; it is easily apprehended that not much of an effort would have to happen there. The pre-determined "swing states" is always where the big efforts are, and which, oddly, always seem to be considered "red," so that when the inevitable putsch occurs, it seems more plausible.
Further, this clown seems to have no idea that, in fact, there ARE discrepancies on the order of 9-10% between hand counts and machine counts. Where has this dickweed been? Diebold and LHS count 80% of the votes in the state.
On the other hand, two GOP ops went to fucking prison for election rigging efforts in NH during 2002. There's even a book about it. You know, the one written by one of the convicted felons, called "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative." But, please, dKos-ers, avert your eyes. Look away! Look ... a ... waaay!
The is an obvious reason why the GOP would hand it to Clinton and Frank Rich stated it perfectly in a column a few weeks ago: there is no Plan B. The GOP has no Plan B for an Obama nomination. They know how to fuck Hillary and they have ever motivation to get her on the ticket rather than "wildcard" Obama. Look for more of this of this nonsense in South Calinky, where SC is determined to use machines banned by other states. It appears obvious to me that the GOP does not have a Plan B for Obama because they don't need one.
When recounts were attempted in Ohio after the debacle in 2004, more people went to prison for rigging the recounts. Do these dipshits at kos know nothing?
And the the hell is up with Marshall? The man has done fine work exposing GOP efforts in a spectrum of election rigging scams and now he can't believe it might be done in NH?
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
Jeannie Dean in FL-13
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:59 pm PT...
WANT A RECOUNT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE?...Do you really?
It's happening HERE:
I think someone mentioned this link in an earlier thread, but here is a little more info. The grannies write:
"We have a candidate that is willing to go to NH and file for the recount. We have paid his air fare and he is on his way as of 4 PM EST. He has tomorrow to file.
"We will be sending him the money as he needs it to assure us and you that each district or precinct is counted plus more funds are needed to complete the process.
CHIP IN AND HELP US CHIP AWAY AT THE NEO CONS AND THE THEIVES IN WASHINGTON DC. WE WON'T LET THEM STEAL ANOTHER SINGLE ONE OF OUR VOTES..."
They need 65,000. They're already at $12,254.60!
RIGHT ON, GRANNIES! Just made my donation. If every BRAD BLOG reader donated 10.oo to the recount and 10.oo to BRAD, we could ALL have a recount and Brad could have a nice rib-eye.
What's 20.00 bucks, people?...
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:59 pm PT...
Damn fine interview, Brad.
I stayed up late too, and came up with a little dot-connecting.
Is Obama Hillary's election piggy bank?
1. Obama, a one-term senator with no track record to speak of, gets $9.031 million in Wall Street contributions (the speculative "FIRE" sector, which Open Secrets.org beaks out into commercial banks, hedge funds/private equity, insurance, real estate and investment and securities). Clinton draws $11.118 million, Giuliani $9.715 million, Romney $9.069 million. Up with the notable Wall Street favorites, in other words. ( http://www.opensecrets.o...res08/select.asp?Ind=F07 Figures to be updated January 31 with next FEC deadline. Presumably, Obama stands a chance to overtake the GOP leaders)
2. The financial side of our economy has far and away out-spent every other sector in our economy, contributing almost $2 billion in campaign contributions since 1990. (Not to mention what goes into lobbying for financial sector de-regulation)
3. Given the control of Wall Street over the economy, no one should be surprised that Wall Street's financial stake in American elections dwarfs that of anyone else's. Read Ellen Hodgson Brown's "Web of Debt" to get an idea of what's at stake for Wall Street in controlling the electoral process through its campaign contributions and ownership of the media.
4. Now, the question all year has been, how does a one-term black senator with no track record become the darling of Wall Street? Well, not quite the darling--Hillary Clinton apparently is the real darling, judging by her solid lead in contributions. But Obama's popularity on Wall Street defies all expectations. Is he charismatic enough to justify making campaign contributions for prudential reasons? Yes, he's charismatic, but there are a lot of charismatic people that don't get $9 million from Wall Street to turn their charisma into an uber-viable presidential campaign.
5, Here's a different kind of point: how do electronic elections get rigged? It's a good guess that the electronic vulnerability of our elections comes from a very high source--a well-funded, insider source. Now, put that together with what we all know about Wall Street--that the real players only bet on a sure thing--and what we know about the nefarious Diebold/LHS insiders running this election, and we can maybe begin to make some tentative connections re: New Hampshire...
But wait! Maybe there was no fraud in New Hampshire! Maybe it was the Hillary-Cried-for-Us Secret Calvary (HCUSC). You know, the older white women who show up at the very last minute to vote for Hillary and then lie to exit poll-takers that they actually voted for Obama. Oh, and they were careful to do this only in precincts running on Diebold/LHS machines--it's part of their sneakiness. (maybe this would be the DailyKos-endorsed conspiracy)
Or maybe the closet racists just happen to live in Diebold/LHS precincts, which would account for the fact that, while all the polls were validated in the hand-counted precincts, they were totally skewed by the "I'm going to lie and tell you I voted for Obama" vote in the electronically counted precincts. (Special note to Professor Sabato: sorry, but the "racial voting" Wilder story doesn't apply. That was a General Election, where Dem guiltiness enters in. This is a primary, where every voter has moral permission to vote for whomever)
Come now. These explanations are ridiculous.
So what happened in New Hampshire? Why would the Diebold/LHS insiders who were playing with the vote totals turn their backs on Wall Street's $9 million dollar man? Maybe because Obama was not so much a Wall Street candidate in the first place, so much as a Wall Street piggy bank. An election piggy bank, that is.
What's an election piggy bank? Watch the Hardball clip on Brad Blog closely. Larry Sabato brings up the "racial voting" hypothesis, the idea that white voters behave one way in the privacy of the voting booth, and another way when responding publicly to exit poll questions. That's a theory that Fox commentator Chris Matthews jumps on heavily in the Hardball interview with Sabato, and as a cover for electronic vote fraud, it packs quite a punch. In the upcoming primaries especially, where issues of multi-state scale and non-auditiability make recounts impossible, the racial voting hypothesis could be used to account really for any discrepancy between Obama's showing in the election and the exit polls.
(New Hampshire is actually a scary situation for anyone attempting electronic fraud because you have hand-counting going on in 19% of the precincts. Everyone knows now that Obama won in those precincts. Hand-counting is a rare situation in our state primary system, which makes it all the more important for us to get a manual audit in New Hampshire.)
If this is all happening, the electronic insiders have a built-in cover when they switch votes away from a popular black candidate into the Hillary Clinton column. And to make the switch less noticeable, it helps to have a POPULAR black candidate, one who will be getting a lot of votes and "won't miss a few here or there." What the plan probably wouldn't have taken into account was that Obama would actually build so much momentum--but fortunately, with the media blackout on the electronic fraud issue and online accomplices like DailyKos, the possibility of an audit in New Hampshire would always be remote.
If this little exercise in dot-connecting is correct, we see now why it was important for Wall Street to fund the campaign of a black candidate. It was a way to cover the election rigging that would turn an unsure bet (Hillary) into a sure one. All you have to do in the aftermath of a rigged primary is say, "well, the polls are inaccurate because white people lied about their preferences (pre-election polls) or vote (exit polls)."
That would make Obama Wall Street's ready-made insurance policy to cover for the polling/election discrepancies should Hillary's campaign need a little electronic boosting. If true, that would make Obama Hillary's election piggy bank.
The sad thing is that such an arrangement , if true, CAN be exposed in New Hampshire, where there is paper in the system, it's a small state, and auditing would be relatively simple. Just try doing the same thing on super Tuesday, which could feature a number of rigged elections on un-auditable electronic systems...
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:02 pm PT...
Oh yeah, and remember this? It had a relevant section.
New Media 'Progressives' Holding Hands With the Corporate Establishment, in a Search for the 'Most Electable'...
It was obvious after the 2004 election that Daily Kos creator, Markos "kos" Zuniga was more afraid of the establishment than he would have people believe when he unilaterally declared that reports of election fraud would be stricken from his site. Despite years of evidence now gathered, despite the volumes published, despite expert opinion and analysis, kos' position has not wavered on this, despite daily reports of Republican-led election shenanigans across the country, with only the latest (and most benign) being the Romney campaign's corruption of a Florida GOP straw poll.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:04 pm PT...
Crackpottery is spreading?
A fella named Dave Johnson is not afraid to ask if the machines fail and can be hacked, why not count the votes by hand just to see?
Here is an actual quote from him at the Huffington Post:
Was The NH Vote Hacked?
Dave Johnson, 01.10.2008
New Hampshire used paper ballots that are scanned by Diebold scanners. The name Diebold sets off alarms. But the ballots are paper and can be counted to see what the voters intended.
(Dave Johnson, Huffpo). If there is a discrepancy between the real hand count and the play pretend results so far, that does not ipso facto equate to a hack ... it could just be a typical malfunction you know.
But the point is we want the votes counted for real instead of being forced to bow down to MSM arrogant asshole demands that we accept the official election warlord's word on FAITH. That is a bullshit religion for sure, and it is hell bent not heaven sent.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:14 pm PT...
Wadda treat waking up to hear Brad & Stephanie Miller ~
(Howard Stern with a vagina) ... Real 21th Century radio ...
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:15 pm PT...
Oh, crap! BD, zap, I take back what I just said about Josh Marshall. He's as bad as Kos.
Even though I know that at least half the problem is that people don't have the time to pay enough attention and really think this stuff through, it still gets me so mad I could just knock their blocks off!
I'm thoroughly disgusted with Obama! He's a wonderful speaker but I think he's been a crap senator. I hope fervently that Hillary sinks like a stone so she gets what she deserves for being such a disingenuous, shifty, double-speaking non-communicating, hard-ass POLITICIAN, who also has been a crap senator. I'd be almost as miserable with EITHER of them, but dammit, it really looks as though Obama really might have actually won New Hampshire.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH COUNTING THE BALLOTS!!!?!!!
Do they think the people might mess up their plans for who will be the nominee?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE!
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:26 pm PT...
Thank you for posting another excellent piece that nicely clarifies your take on this New Hampshire ELECTION issue. i agree with the post that you could use a bigger forum for your blogs and investigations.
Unfortunately, since your opinions run counter to the wishes and INTERESTS of the incumbant 1%er corporatists who own and control the mass media, it looks like you're going to have to grow at your own speed. i bet Presidential candidate Dennis Kusinich feels the same way.
Word up about Marcos. Just because he at 1 time attained some popularity at his website, it has become more and more obvious that this jerk off talks out of his ace. He can talk tough to get people's attention but he's just a quick to judge fcking idiot who doesn't properly investigate before shooting his mouth off. Oh well like they say in the biz.. Bad publicity is still publicity and you can still rectify the situation at another time like you did today on the S Miller show.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:28 pm PT...
I'm not saying the election was stolen but if it was I'm pretty damn sure I know why it was- a couple days before the election I read how the Republican bigwigs were terrified Hillary would not win- they want Hillary in the general election. They know she has no chance to become president. So they just needed to fix this one election. Mission accomplished. All momentum Obama had has been stopped dead in its tracks. We're now back to the media talking round the clock about Hillary the Inevitable, the Comeback Kid- with the majority of Dems resigned to the fact she will be the candidate. Make no mistake, as a candidate she will be a unmitigated disaster for the Democratic party. She will spur Republican turnout like you've never seen and the downticket Repubs will also get a huge boost.
As for kos- this is the same "progressive" who wrote a book called Storming the Gates when he should have titled it Storming the Green Rooms. kos is desperate to be a player in the corporate media so any talk of vote tampering is verboten and will be met with rightwing smear tactics. Besides that, I think he just enjoys going on little power trips and showing people who is in charge (little man syndrome). The rank and file kossacks are decent folks but there is a hardcore of suck ups to Markos and his staff over there that will use name calling and troll ratings to try and intimidate people into shutting up. It's gotten steadily worse. I keep wondering, will treating the diarists like shit eventually bite him in the ass? I doubt it- his site is so big it will take a mass defection to have an effect on his income. But it needs to happen. kos needs a dose of humility and to learn that free speech ain't such a bad thing.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:29 pm PT...
I think I forgot to mention "calculating" on the list of Hillary's "flaws". I heard Obama speaking at a Jefferson Jackson dinner the day after it was certain Congress would legalize torture and take away habeas corpus.... HE DIDN'T SAY ONE WORD ABOUT IT!!! Not one. Everyone was reeling from the news and the bastard didn't say Word One. I don't care WHAT electing him would do for the perception of America as a bunch of racists! THAT is not remotely "presidential" in my book. It's just plain wussy.
Nevertheless, I want to be able to bitch loudly about an actually elected bastard for a fucking change.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:29 pm PT...
If you count the ballots then what would the "Minister of Numbers" do ...
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:55 pm PT...
Excellent interview, Brad. You made your case clearly and concisely and people went to the YouTube video. Occam's Razor suggests that the same people who manipulated by a few points last time did this one, too, if just to keep their oar in. It's not like they would have a really terrible time of smacking down Obama, should he come to pass, although the racial strife would make them look worse - with Hil, the job was half done by 1999.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
Bob In Pacifica
said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:04 pm PT...
REBEL YELL, I can't say I know enough about Markos or the other guy to make a claim of CIA (or some intelligence org generally) connectedness.
However, there were enough tells prior to the election to suggest that this may have been planned as some kind of psyop. Front and center would Gloria Steinem's op-ed in the New York Times, "Women Are Never Frontrunners." I discuss here
about Steinem's history with the CIA, including reprinting a news article from 1967 where she admits (although not fully or honestly) her prior work for the CIA. The timing and content of her op-ed in the very same New York Times forty-one years later suggests that there was a narrative being created to cover for her "victory." A few tears here, a couple of clowns with a rude sign there, maybe a dozen women calling talk shows around the country, and all of a sudden you have created a rationale for why Clinton gets her upset.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:50 pm PT...
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:55 pm PT...
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:57 pm PT...
And just WHO will conduct this recount? The NH Attorney General will NOT allow herself to be embarrassed.
You're pissing in the wind until you can answer this question.
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:57 pm PT...
Brad, try to get the message out on progressive talk.I am skeptical but AA radio owner's brother ,Mark Green seems to be in Clinton camp it would be tough to get on and give the situation more visibility.Look it's the staus quo still trying to protect this broken system,shameful indeed.
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 7:58 pm PT...
Ball, you must be from Jersey. Only in NJ was the Attorney General the chief election officer (but no more--the legislature just passed a law returning the election division to the SoS).
But you have a good point. Remember Ohio. It may be very difficult to get a fair recount. There are election officials who will do almost anything, legal or illegal if necessary, to impede a meaningful recount and any other process that moves away from the present system and toward openness and citizen involvement. For starters, was a verifiable chain of custody in place for the ballots?
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:03 pm PT...
If you want to know what kind of person Markos is, consider that today he encouraged, on his site's front page, that Michigan Democratic voters go out of there way to vote for a certain Republican candidate to mess up their nomination process.
That's the kind of asshole and un-Democratic person he is.
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:10 am PT...
Excellent job Brad!
I'll repost those flashback postings again here. My contention then was that Rove made a significant to "Swiftboat Exit Polling" as a predictor of outcomes. In fact, Exit Polling is an excellent predictor of election outcomes, which is precisely why the Fascists need to ensure that the American people demand that it be stopped.
YOUR STOLEN NATION…
EXIT POLLS DON’T LIE – GET EDUCATED – ALERT THE MEDIA!
Rove has telegraphed his punch, and now it’s up to all of us to call BULLSHIT on his BULLSHIT.
Speaking on a recent NPR interview, Rove stated that he actually sees upward of 36 different polls – many of which predict a GOP victory in the coming elections.
He’s simply lying.
He’s lying to create a mindset of doubt – in order to better enable the theft of the election through means other than the ballot box. The GOP has effectively hijacked America. Bush did not win the election in 2004. Exit polls don’t lie…but Rove does.
Revisit the exit polling data from 2004 and share it with others:
Call it to the attention of the media. Let the media know that we WILL NOT TOLERATE another stolen election, nor will we tolerate their complicity in disparaging the validity of Exit Polling as a valuable check against election fraud.
THE SWIFTBOATING OF “EXIT POLLING”
Last night it started. CNN’s Jeff Greenfield was interviewed about the forthcoming elections, and his parting comment at the end of the segment was what would have appeared to be an off-handed disparaging remark about the reliability of Exit Polls.
Greenfield was/is shilling for Rove – and this was a TALKING POINT ordered up by Rove. “Exit Polling” had not been part of the prior discussion, but was something that he slipped in at the end of the segment – as if ordered to do so.
Rove has been interviewed in recent days proclaiming that HIS polling (which he proclaims nobody else has access to and is superior to all other polling data) portrays the key races to be very close, not nearly the blowouts that the REALITY BASED COMMUNITY is seeing.
THIS IS A SET UP.
If you are going to STEAL AN ELECTION VIA VOTE RIGGING – you need to lay the ground work – planting doubt in the minds of the electorate through the media shills.
Exit polling has been a reliable method by which to approximate the result of elections prior to the final votes being tallied. Exit polling has only been called into question in the last two election cycles – but ONLY because the Exit Polling data were not confirmed by the final “official” vote tally. As has now been proven, it was not the Exit Polling data that was inaccurate or unreliable, it was the reporting of the Official Total” that had been tampered with.
It’s time to TAKE THE OFFENSIVE where Exit Polling is concerned and reveal this Swiftboating of “Exit Polling” for what it is – a Rovian sham designed specifically to condition the electorate to disbelieve the exit poll results (which will portray the house and Senate going under Democratic Control), and rather to only believe the “Official” (FALSE) vote count.
The Mainstream Media is fully complicit in the Rovian Brainwashing campaign to discredit “Exit Polling” as unscientific hoohah, when in fact it is the smoking gun EVIDENCE of election fraud used throughout the world. Ask International Elections Observers about the value of Exit Polling.
The GOP has employed a firm called Penn, Schoen, & Berland to skew exit poll results in the past in order to achieve their own political ends. Watch out for this firm’s exit poll results in this years elections. They are on Rove’s payroll:
Electoral Fraud Is the First Step on the Road to Tyranny
Read the link above – GREAT ARTICLE.
November 2, 2004: Overcoming a six point exit-poll advantage by Senator John Kerry, George Bush is re-elected President. Several statisticians have calculated the probability of this anomaly as one in a million --- in effect, impossible.
Former Pollster Pleads Guilty to Fabricating Results
Tracy Costin, the former owner of polling company DataUSA Inc., entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit mail fraud for fabricating the results of polls the company conduct on behalf of, among others, President Bush in 2004.
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:18 am PT...
Dick Morris, a career pollster (who has worked for both parties), states in the Hill News that the Election Night pattern of exit polls versus popular vote in six battleground states - Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa - was "virtually inconceivable":
"Exit polls are almost never wrong ... So reliable are the surveys that actually tap voters as they leave the polling places that they are used as guides to the relative honesty of elections in Third World countries. … To screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them is incredible."
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:50 am PT...
I have always wondered at someone that trusts those that have stolen from them before, and then gives them their new investment to steal?
the posts by that particular author have historically been strange, and one might consider taking them together to better visualize the pattern of their contempt
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2008 @ 10:31 am PT...
Let's not forget that "a close race" keeps people in front of the TV.. keeps political ad funds flowing to the networks, and the increased ratings keeps normal ad money flowing.
Follow the money..
I'd venture a "run away candidate" would put a serious drop in viewership of "debates" (which aren't debates when they don't include counter points), then they would lose advertising money. And if the race was "over" already, local stations wouldn't get political ad money over the next few months while the rest of the primaries run out..
Basically, in this "for show" Government we have (all the serious stuff seems to happen in closed meetings), they have found a way to start sucking up money for the election for an entire YEAR before the vote. When it looked like the "people" were going to go one way so early, their "plan" got screwed.. But, plan on it being white washed away, or just ignored.. and the cash will continue to flow!
COMMENT #55 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2008 @ 11:44 am PT...
Excellent work on the S. Miller show Brad!
COMMENT #56 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2008 @ 12:39 pm PT...
Nobody posts the truth: the Dem Secy of State of NH has assured he is happy w/the recount... and that ALL ELECTRONIC votes in NH ALSO have a paper receipt... unlike Florida/Ohio machines. (Which is common knowledge, if ANYONE WAS PAYING ATTENTION!!!)
It was all over the news... why not here?
Again: Are dems becoming a Dragon that eats itself? I'm ashamed of all of you! I feel like I'm reading a Republican blog. Bad Brad (for starting this mess...!) As if the Repubs won't throw out enough fodder regardless of who the candidate (becomes) --- they're laughing at you (unfortunately, "us" --- as I am a very liberal dem...) ...and they'll use whatever dirt you hand them --- just wait and see!
COMMENT #57 [Permalink]
said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:14 pm PT...
Ditto. Very well done. I'll be saving this one.
The National party here in NZ are riding high in the polls. I don't know for sure if they would invest in these junk machines if elected but I guess we need to be prepared. Is it possible to download this whole Blog or get it on DVD. I hope you have quite a few copies of the blog scattered around the world for safekeeping.
COMMENT #58 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2008 @ 10:42 pm PT...
Katherine #56 said:
Nobody posts the truth: the Dem Secy of State of NH has assured he is happy w/the recount... and that ALL ELECTRONIC votes in NH ALSO have a paper receipt... unlike Florida/Ohio machines. (Which is common knowledge, if ANYONE WAS PAYING ATTENTION!!!)
It was all over the news... why not here?
Huh? Have you bothered to read a word on this site, dear? I assure you, the readers here know full well how the ballots are both cast and (not) counted in New Hampshire.
If they're "laughing at" me, as you suggest, it would likely be because uninformed dolts come on by here, without reading anything, and repeat their uninformation as if it's based on fact.
Go read. Then get back to me. (And, in case I miss it, apology accepted.)