READER COMMENTS ON
"7 Point Swing for Clinton Over Obama in NH's Diebold Precincts"
(43 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
wow
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:25 am PT...
But she cried on TV and they played it 5,000x the day before the election showing how authentic she is. This does not make any sense. How could she lose if she cried on tv the day before? The analysis must be wrong. There is no way she lost if she cried. All the pundits for the past 24 hours have subconsiously programmed me to believe that clinton won. Now you give me incontrovertible evidence that she lost. Darn it and I was just engaging in one of those staged conversations making up prposterous excuses about how all the pre and exit polls were all wrong. I was just explaining how the Diebold machines, that are guilty of fraud in every election for the past 10 years, somehow were completely accurate 2 nights ago. Awww shucks, I guess her fake tears did nothing but act as a pretext to a BS excuse for after the fraud. But Hillary would never do such a thing would she?
I mean Giambi would never take steroids would he?
I mean Britney's sister would never get pregnant, would she?
I mean Cheney would never out a CIA agent, would he?
I mean Wolf Blitzer would never help sell illegal wars, would he?
This is just too much, she cried for god's sake. How could she cry, commit voter fraud, and then act like she really won. She is authentic and has never deceived anyone (except for Peter Paul and Vince Foster) in her life.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Lisanne
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:35 am PT...
This issue could be easiliy settled by hand-counting the ballots that went through the optical scan machines... or at least doing a few random audits/hand-counts. The paper ballots still exist, don't they?
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
wow
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:26 am PT...
Well sure. I doubt the people that fixed the election would ever think of fixing the recount. I mean they are not that forward thinking. Especially since they purposefully created/manipulated/dumped all evidence and paper trails in expectation of a possible recount. Some may say that redoing the election would ensure that the constitutional rights of the Citizens are protected. But that might take too much energy for the "Live Free or Die" state so it probably won't happen.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Floridiot
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:29 am PT...
WOW #1, She never had anything to do with this!!!.
It's the Republicans, they want her on the ballot to get the indys back in their camp!!!
Motive, my friend
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Floridiot
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:36 am PT...
Not to offend any good R's I should have said Republican Operatives
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
River
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:45 am PT...
With so many primaries to go, if the voting machine are skewing results this will become incontrovertibly demonstrable using the closely- watched data. Or will the public buy into a dozen 'miracle' comebacks as foolishly as it bought into one?
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Floridiot
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:53 am PT...
River, IMO they only had to do it this one time to try and break the momentum of the Obama campaign...we'll see
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
Phil
said on 1/10/2008 @ 3:57 am PT...
River,
The public at large will buy into the corporate media's published perception. (If it's wrong and skewed they'll never know) Because that's the only source for their information.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Ben Moseley
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:01 am PT...
First off, thank you for the award. I graciously accept and thank you for the coverage.
I have posted another update to the situation after doing hours of more research and what I found out pretty much debunks the claims.
As you mention: "..had the hand-counted results matched up similarly to those in Diebold areas, it might well have been a sign that there was little to worry about."
And this is exactly the analysis I did and although Hillary did receive a small boost in the Diebold towns, it was pretty insignificant and lower percentage swing.
The other thing is that the exit polls matched pretty accurately the actual voting results and exit polls have traditionally been the best way to discover evidence of election fraud. It seems that this has not been the case and while some may see my many hours of late work as a waste, I am glad that I spent the time to research the figures and confirm or debunk the natural suspicions.
Again, I'm honored and extremely thankful for the support from Brad Blog and I intend to continue my research and analysis for benefit or our democracy.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Floridiot
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:40 am PT...
Is somebody going to tell him about exit polls ?
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
wow
said on 1/10/2008 @ 5:04 am PT...
@Floridot
I am hoping this does not come as a surprise to you.
There is no such thing as a 2-party system. there are only elites and the rest. She is elite, so are Cheney, Bush, Pelosi.
Why do you think Cheney has not been impeached by Pelosi?
Did you know she is high on the top 10 corrupt politicians of all time?
We the people need more local control of elections and they continue disrupting us using the Hegelian dialectic. It is all sun-tzu divide and conquer as they slowly plummet this country into bankruptcy. Take a look at Senate Bill 1959 which is about to be passed and open your eyes to what is in the pipe for us. [Briefly: it is a thought crimes bill with huge Internet regulations. It was passed by over 400 in the House.]
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
Big Dan
said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:26 am PT...
I'm most happy about, that we're examining Democratic primaries. They were "off limits" for Dean/Kerry. Only general elections were examined.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Zee
said on 1/10/2008 @ 6:57 am PT...
Floridiot, although that link doesn't work, Ben clearly states he did look at CNN's exit polling.
Here's the link again...maybe BradBlog will front page this?
http://benmoseley.blogsp.../2008_01_01_archive.html
One of Ben's commenters, Tony, a software developer who normally questions election accuracy, astutely notes
"...everyone is questioning the poll results vs the final results. Is anyone questioning the final poll results? Clinton was ahead, way ahead, until just before the primary. If things changed that much in the few days leading up to the primary, is it not possible that things changed in the last day?"
I think that is the most salient point of all. Context, people.
Obama himself notes that he was double digits behind Hillary until a week before the election. The instant bump he got after his Iowa win could easily have evaporated just as suddenly, especially given the long-term support Hillary had there. I was in Dover, canvassing for Edwards, and another thing not mentioned is that the voters were seriously polled out by then and often not answering their phones or doors. I found a lot of support for Hillary. I also found a lot of truly undecideds who pulled out their comparison sheets when I came by. What I didn't find was a lot of enthusiastic and steadfast support for Obama, and I was baffled when the campaign pulled us out of an area they were conceding to him, because I wasn't seeing that much support for him. Anecdotal evidence may be sneered at by number-crunchers, but this snapshot of the final hours before the election does match the results. And it makes sense. And apparently, the CNN exit polls match, too.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
JEP
said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:09 am PT...
Doesn't Rove still command a small cadre of fake Democrats in New Hampshire, the same ones he used to caller-ID those Democratic call centers and jam them?
So, considering that Rove knows something the rest of us as yet don't (Hillary's "fatal flaw" was never articulated, but it was referenced by the Rovian, so we might assume it's a trump card held close for the general election)is it any wonder they might make certain Hillary gets the nomination, so they can skewer her with their dirty little secret(s) when the time comes?
And what of the billion-dollar campaign projections that a New Hampshire loss for Clinton would have halved? Those media moguls aren't about to give this newest Diebold deception any coverage, Matthews keeps questioning the results, but no one seems to want to make this Diebold connection on the MSM.
And who benefits most from a continuation of Clinton's campaign?
1. The Republicans who think they have some dirt that will bury her in the general, or 2. the MSM that wants that easy-money campaign advertising revenue?
Hillary may not even know what happened, but no doubt someone on her staff does.
Something's rotten in New Hampshire this time around.
Once again...
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
JEP
said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:16 am PT...
This couldn't happen in Iowa, where you must have the courage to show yourself and your loyalties, in person, physical, a regular live body count, up front, no secrets, no machines to bend the results.
Maybe Iowa's got a good thing going after all.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
TJA
said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:19 am PT...
The neofascist wing of the Republican Party wants Hillary to be the nominee because it views her to be the most beatable in a general election. If she had lost in New Hampshire her campaign would have been doomed and Obama's gigantic momentum would have continued uninterrupted. The Clintons almost certainly had nothing to do with any election fraud. However, they are clearly willing stooges who gleefully court the Rupert Murdoch's and the George HW Bush's of the world.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
John Dowd
said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:16 am PT...
Hey Brad,
Great job, thanks.
Note typo in sentence: "That point alludes Tribune Media Services columnist Bob Koehler too." the word should be "eludes", not "alludes".
{Ed Note: Fixed, thanx. --99}
But as long as I'm writing this, I'll say one other thing too. Why is it that we as a nation NEVER ask about fraud? Here is a case, where it's all in one small state, and not that many people voted, so it would be both quite possible, and rather easy to do a recount in enough key precincts to either find REAL evidence of fraud, or lay the matter to rest, but not even these air-head pundits seem willing to ask the right questions, focusing instead on voters lying, by the thousands. Why are they going for this massive voter-lying conspiracy, instead of at least asking if a few people, who had motive and opportunity, and the means, might have committed a crime?
Well, it might help if we had a free press, for one thing instead of this government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
For the love of truth,
John
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Floridiot
said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:46 am PT...
I'll try to say it again, CNN's exit polling is fudged to match the computerized early totals of the elections.
But alas, it will not be understood that it is not Raw exit data.
knock knock puddin head we used to say
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Fred Klein
said on 1/10/2008 @ 9:57 am PT...
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
GWN
said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:04 am PT...
"Debunked" in one night eh, Mr Moseley, and without the raw exit poll data. I guess you've wasted all those years Brad trying to prove that election fraud MAY be taking place. Apparently it can be debunked in ONE night.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
Ska-T
said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:52 am PT...
RE: Comment #9 by Ben Moseley.
Ben, you say the exit poll data matched closely with the reported vote. Please respond by saying that you either have the raw exit poll data (which I doubt), or that you did not understand that the raw exit poll data is later "corrected" to match the reported vote. Your response is important because Brad gave you credence in his article above. Your comment #9 gives fuel to the "don't worry, be happy" crowd. Either you have the raw data or you don't.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
wow
said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:53 am PT...
I wonder if Hillery's tears will be real when she apologizes for rigging an election during congressional hearings. Maybe then she can truly look authentic prior to a grand jury indictment.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
Zee
said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:55 am PT...
Well, you boys just go right on and squawk about those polls showing Obama up a few days before the election, and conveniently ignore the fact that a few days before that he was double digits down. I was there. Those feisty older ladies in their homes with the Xmas decorations still up were no Rovian plants, but carry on with your theories.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
Randy
said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:55 am PT...
"Not to offend any good R's I should have said Republican Operatives"
What are you talking about. All Republicans are complicit. Name one who gives a damn about voter disenfranchisement. I'm tired of giving breaks to enablers, Republican, Democratic or independent.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
Zee
said on 1/10/2008 @ 10:59 am PT...
Oh, and anyone who thinks the Republicans fear a black candidate and thus go out of their way to rig this for Hillary might like to buy this bridge I own in Brooklyn. It's a bargain!
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Zee
said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:05 am PT...
Good point, Randy. Even if Chris Matthews is suggesting vote fraud for the wrong reasons, it can't hurt to use this rare MSM attention to ratchet up support for hand-counting ballots. Just because I experienced the final rush of support for Hillary and saw the turnout myself doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome the media attention on this issue!
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
Agent 99
said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:17 am PT...
So, great, now we're down to a surge of tender-hearted old New Hampshire biddies, falling for the (fake) emotion from their sister after her well-deserved Iowa loss, explains the completely suspicious Clinton win.
Is it really that hard to just READ?
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
Floridiot
said on 1/10/2008 @ 11:43 am PT...
Shit, I should have been there selling Depends
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
...
Mateito
said on 1/10/2008 @ 12:10 pm PT...
It's a very important point that they offer at Kos - although some diarists do so with a great deal of abrasiveness - that blaming Hilary for tweaking numbers would only create a backlash. It is true. We can be gracious towards Hilary without discounting the fact that REPUBLICANS COUNTED THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. These guys can flip the numbers as easily as a ten year old can play a video game. Imagine them counting the Iowa Caucus! Keeping the blame focused not on Hilary, but on Republican partisan convicts counting the Democratic primary - that seems like a hard line to discount.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
...
Cleaner44
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:00 pm PT...
Vote fraud confirmed in Sutton, NH.
TOWN OF SUTTON CONFIRMS RON PAUL TOTALS WERE 31, NOT ZERO.
Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31 not zero as was originally reported.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
...
tom z
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:05 pm PT...
bev from black box seems to think RonPaul was cheated in two different districts?dont fear change its for the better in my opion?barak is cfr,his wife works there do you know about the cfr?im from jersey all my life.my blood is just as blue if not more so!dem the whole time but im not for weak immegration,north american union,nafta,vote fraud and most of all globalization! the truth is barak is in corprate pocket where all his money comes from no?america first,politics after, voter transparency then we can talk RP people know barak was cheated we want is transparency olny the truth,we want real change between us that is a fact lets exploit it!
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
...
tom z
said on 1/10/2008 @ 1:38 pm PT...
please ask him about global government?Barak that is!fractional reserve banking the federale reserve,THE WAR!!OLNY RON PAUL wants to march out like we marched in this illeagal war!he is the OLNY ONE to bring peace,competing currency to the crooks face it they played us for dummys Barak hitlery are not real change I will listen to barak you listen to ron paul and we will decide if we need a hansome president or a foriegn policy,economist,congressman,dr.well seasoned vet?stop playing this dem repub bull its about our children p.s entidlements are not promised in the constitution if you dont like it amend it,don ignore it also while im on my soap box ILOVE LIFE+LIBERTY=happiness a women made her choice when so had concentual intercoure(is there always a exception to the rule?,im not sure?who does,but my gut says it can be!?)without life how can we have liberty?this is why I think i should not have to pay for murder at the federale level,its a state issue?could i have some honest thinking,im sorry if you think im attacking you!,im not,i love bradblog and tell every one about him !because im based in fact not fiction i would like to believe. we can talk about it and not let THEM DEVILS make the talking points you must understand we have sabbators and a few idiots over in the paul camp but we all want true freedom!!! i might be one of them idiots the jury is still out?cant we unite and take our government back destroy the two party corruption and get back to local gov can we not agree on this?
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
...
DES
said on 1/10/2008 @ 2:07 pm PT...
PLEASE NOTE:
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.
Thank you.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
...
Botany
said on 1/10/2008 @ 4:05 pm PT...
One precinct w/ Diebold in Florida 2000 helped
changed history ..... after Gore was declared the
winner he got a negative 16,000 votes ..... which
was later "linked to" a bad memory card.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."
- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22
************************************
The data, the polls, and real history all show election
fraud and yet our media seems to work kill the story.
In Ohio 2004 we had lost more jobs than any other state
from 2000 to 2004, we had more dems than repugs, and
new voters were registered @ 10 to 1 for Kerry and yet
bush won the state?
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
...
WOW
said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:59 pm PT...
WOW! Unbelievable!
The hand-machine statistics are perfect mirror images of each other while other numbers are perfectly consistent as a system control check. I am a mathematician. I can conclude the following:
(1) Ms. Clinton won a 100 million dollar jackpot on a given day of her chosen. The odds is astronomical to absolute impossible.
(2) God really exists and helped her out.
The only logical explanations are:
(a) The optical scanners were innocently programed to swap the two candidates. A program error.
(b) The election is ragged.
It has to be one of the two.
It is amazing!!!
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
...
leftisbest
said on 1/11/2008 @ 12:34 am PT...
I sent this email out to multiple media contacts yesterday, Wednesday, 1/9/08 at 3:11 p.m. before I saw any "theories" on why there was such a spread between the hand-counted precincts and the Diebold precincts. This email was then forwarded by several media sources to other media sources, and so forth. I have no idea if this was where Keith Olberman got wind of the concerns about the differences or not on his show last night (Wednesday), but his was the first I heard of any MSM even mentioning this aspect (the paper vs machine dichotomy) of the NH race. Does anyone have contact with Olberman so this can be raised as more than just a footnote, as he treated it last night? Here's the email that went out...
"There may be no stronger argument for hand counted paper ballots (HCPB) than the graph below, prepared by Gerald Destremps and submitted to Black Box Voting (www.bbv.org). Go specifically to http://www.bbvforums.org...954/71200.html#POST39553 for the discussion of the Obama/Clinton phenomenal outcome vs even the exit polls. Gerald’s excellent spreadsheet can be found at http://www.bbvforums.org...es/1954/votes2-71218.xls.
See my question below about why Obama wins overwhelmingly 83 towns vs 45 towns on hand-counted (and easily verifiable) paper ballots and Clinton clobbers him 59 towns to 38 towns in those precincts using the same Diebold machines that Harri Hursti hacked in the HBO documentary Hacking Democracy? Every one of these machines is programmed by and controlled by one man, John Silvestro of LHS Associates as a subcontractor for Diebold.
Could it be that Silvestro was paid by the Republicans to fix the outcome so that Obama would not be riding at the top of the wave, so that Clinton would come out the winner? Why would the Republicans want Clinton to win in N.H.? Because almost all matchups show the Republicans have a better chance of beating Clinton than they do of beating Obama. So why not make sure early on that Clinton stays competitive in the race? This would be a classic Rovian tactic, and should not be dismissed as a mere conspiracy theory. Everyone else is trying to figure out how the pollsters could have been so wrong. Maybe they weren’t wrong at all. How else do you explain the fact that you get VERY VERY different results when comparing using one method of voting and counting to another method of voting and counting?
Per BBV, Debra Bowen is in N.H. to observe a recount in a Diebold township. This is a very BIG story, and the mainstream media, as usual, has missed it completely so far.
Also, go to www.bradblog.com for outstanding coverage of this developing and explosive story." - end of email.
Bev Harris has been on this from the very beginning and I think Dennis Kucinich's demand for a full recount is the ONLY way to prove whether the corporate-controlled machines gave votes to Clinton or not.
As our standard EI disclaimer, I want to make it clear that I don't give a damn who won that election, I just want to know how the numbers that were reported came into being. Were they real or were they manufactured?
I believe MSM is AFRAID, VERY AFRAID to reveal the truth, if the truth is the numbers were manufactured. Dennis' has juevos, and I hope for once the Democratic party will listen to him, but why would they, it would be a real embarassment if it comes out the numbers are rigged. Will we ever get a chance for a recount? What do we, the people, have to do to FORCE a full recount in every Diebold precinct?
This can change the course of history - are we going to sit back and do nothing, or are we going to DEMAND that the NH SOS conduct a recount??? Who can make this happen before it becomes "yesterday's" news?
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
...
Lois G.
said on 1/11/2008 @ 9:54 am PT...
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
...
Jake in Milwaukee
said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:05 pm PT...
Without judging this argument on its merits, I still think more analysis is necessary. For instance, what kind of precincts were machine counted versus hand counted? Would the Diebold-counted precincts be found in more highly-populated areas where hand-counting wasn't feasible? What about the possibility that Hillary had stronger urban support than the polls were able to convey? From what I've found, Hillary's strongest margins of victory in New Hampshire came from Manchester and Nashua. Perhaps Obama didn't have the city bosses in line to get out the voters for him.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
...
Agent 99
said on 1/11/2008 @ 1:36 pm PT...
Jake, hand counting is always feasible! Doesn't even have to be slower if you have enough people on the job.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
...
Capt. Canada
said on 1/11/2008 @ 2:46 pm PT...
Here in Canada all votes are recorded by means of paper and pencil. All votes are counted in hand counts and recounts are possible when the vote is close. Representatives of all candidates are present during the counting. Everything is on the up-and-up and there is a general effort by all to be co-operative and fair.
What has gone wrong with you Americans? You used to be the shining example of fairness and democracy. But your voting system has become a source of corruption, pure and simple. Gore won the election in 2000 and Kerry won in Ohio in 2004. The advance polling and exit polling in the USA are now more accurate than the official election results which now carry all the weight of the electoral results in a banana republic. Whatever happened to American backbone? To the spirit of the founding fathers? What a sad bunch of whimps the people of America have become to allow their democracy to be corrupted to such a pathetic mess. Do something about it. Listen to people like Kucenich and get away from the idiot box with its corporate propaganda. Get off your butts and demand democracy!!!
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
...
James
said on 1/11/2008 @ 6:31 pm PT...
Captain Canada is wrong (partly). In Ontario, several municipalities use Scanning Systems, which scan fullpage ballots filled out using special black markers. This allows for fast counting during the voting day, so that results could be available as the day proceeds. Each Party has Scrutineers which monitor processes, have to keep track on hourly bases the numbers who have voted, but not results. If a recount is needed, it can be done on a different machine after the polls have closed. This can point out machines that are compromised, although I have never heard of a problem with the machines.
The machine conspiracy theory reminds me of an old econometric/statistical quandry of causality. If the number of churches correlates with the crime rate, does that mean that religion causes crime, or that criminals have need of absolution quickly. I suspect it is neither, but cannot prove it. Note that the CBSNEWS poll of Jan5/6 (released Jan 7) reported: Obama 35%; Clinton 28%; Edwards 19%; and
Undecided 9%.
But the survey also indicated 28% of these Primary Democratic voters said their minds could still change! Hmmm. That means that at worst 9% were not concrete, and at best 37% were not concrete. That seems to allow for an awful lot of variability.
Of course it is almost impossible to comment on the exit polls without the raw data on poll entrants and the exit poll methodology. Any pointers are appreciated.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
...
Peace Patriot
said on 1/12/2008 @ 6:33 am PT...
I just want to point out the stakes, to the political establishment, of the discovery of a significant mis-count in NH.
In May 2004, six months before the 04 election, CA sec of state Kevin Shelley (Dem-elected the previous year) sued Diebold, demanded to see their source code, and decertified the worst of their election theft machines (the touchscreens). He also provided Californians with a paper ballot option, began seriously riding herd on corrupt county election officials and banned "revolving door"employment in his office. (The previous CA sec of state, Repub Bill Jones, had gone to work for Sequoia.)
As the result of Shelly's election integrity actions, Kerry won the state by a 10% margin (although there is evidence in the election data that his margin was cut by as much as one half, all of it in Repub counties, the likely culprit being the central electronic tabulators).
Soon afterward, Shelley was "swift-boated" out of office, on entirely bogus corruption chargers, with the collusion of the Dem state party leaders, who also helped Schwarzenegger appoint a Republican and Diebold shill as sec of state.*
Lesson: If you go after Diebold, the "dark lords" will get you.
It is important for us to realize that the destruction of our election system, by turning it over to Bushite corporations to be run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, was as much a project of the Dem Party leadership as it was of Tom Delay, Bob Ney and other Bushite criminals. The main issue, in my opinion, is who is going to pay for the corporate resource war in Iraq, for the next corporate resource war in South America (see Rumsfeld op-ed, Wapo 12/1/07), and the $10 trillion deficit. Our political establishment is determined that the poor shall pay. It is therefore essential that fascists control the vote count with secret code, especially as the economy deteriorates due to the deficit, "free trade" and other induced mayhem, and our government treasury continues to be massively looted by war and police state profiteers and super-rich tax evaders.
There is every evidence that Hillary Clinton is a "Blue Dog" (rightwing) Democrat, who mostly supports Bushite war and corporate policy, with the poor paying the bill. Obama is more of an unknown, who might challenge this policy. There is motive for fascist voting machine corporations to favor Hillary, whether for this reason (she is already the 'made' candidate), or to nominate her and then defeat her for someone yet worse (f.i., McCain). But the "bigger picture" motivation to fiddle a NH recount is to retain the machines, and quiet the growing rebellion against them, for overall control of election outcomes this year and in future years.
One election integrity activist in NH** warns that a recount WILL be fiddled in the machines' favor, and doesn't want a recount. She says the 04 recount in NH was fiddled. Although I disagree with her (I want a recount), her warning of the perils of an invalid recount should be heeded. I hope that election integrity experts will be all over that recount, calling them on every bit of B.S.
There is nothing more important than restoring the integrity of our elections. There should be NO uncertainty in any outcome. And a 1% audit or 3% recount is ridiculously inadequate in a 'TRADE SECRET' system. (Venezuela hand-counts a whopping 55%--in an OPEN SOURCE code system!) The stakes are high. The NH recount can easily be skewed. Let's do everything we can to insure that it is not, and to prevent the corporate news monopolies, and the Democratic party, from shoving this all-important issue into a "black hole" once again.
-----
*(Long story--of awesome Prog Dems activism--but we now have a good sec of state again--Debra Bowen.)
**(http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30018)
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
...
DES
said on 1/15/2008 @ 1:47 pm PT...
Posting this on all applicable threads...
PLEASE NOTE:
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.
Thank you.