Okay, crew, what's up with the New Hampshire voting weirdness?

[MorningGlow]

Fraud/computer hacking tossing it to Hillary? Legitimate albeit unusual independent trend toward Hillary at the last minute? Erroneous exit polls? Nobody on this plane seems to know--what does the ether say?

[liberalnurse]

1. Honey, you are in the wrong Forum for this.

N/t

[MorningGlow]

2. What do you mean?

This isn't GD. And I'm asking for psychic impressions. So I think this is exactly the right forum. :hi:

[liberalnurse]

10. Skinner said so ..............

Here is the thread and link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2650440


It's time to move the discussion of alleged election fraud in NH to the Election Reform forum

After careful consideration, the DU Administrators have come to the conclusion that this discussion has become disruptive and divisive to our community. If there were any credible evidence to support the allegation of fraud or voting machine malfunction in New Hampshire, then I would be more than willing to let the discussion continue in our two General Discussion forums. But at this point no such evidence has been produced. The horse has been beaten to death, propped back up, then beaten to death again. Everyone has said their piece (numerous times). Nothing new is being added, and no minds are being changed. After all that, here's where we stand:

1. No credible evidence of fraud or malfunction has yet been produced.

2. A number of observers here and elsewhere have provided perfectly rational explanations for alleged discrepancies between tracking polls and the final outcome.

3. So far there has been nary a peep from any campaign indicating that they believe there may have been either fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire.

4. If any of the campaigns had reason to believe that there was fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire, and if they wished to challenge the results of the election, a paper trail exists whereby the results could be verified.

If someone actually has some real evidence to support the claims of fraud or machine malfunction, then we'll be glad to let this discussion back into the General Discussion forums. But unless that happens, I think the time has come to take a break.

From now on:

Please do not post any more threads alleging fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire in either the General Discussion forum or the General Discussion: Politics forum. If you wish to discuss alleged election fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire, please do so in our Election Reform forum.

I am instructing the moderators to move all threads on the topic of election fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire out of the two General Discussion forums and into the Election Reform forum.

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner
DU Admin

[MorningGlow]

11. Aw, liberalnurse, it's okay

I saw Skinner's e-mail when he posted it today. Please note this part: "Please do not post any more threads alleging fraud or machine malfunction in New Hampshire in either the General Discussion forum or the General Discussion: Politics forum." It's okay to talk about this stuff here. We talk about all kinds of conspiracy theories in ASAH--because it's not a major forum that would reflect poorly on DU as a whole, we're left to do as we please. Peace! :hi:

[Why Syzygy]

12. wow ..

I really am out of the loop. I miss a lot of DU. Thanks for passing this along.

My thought, which I forgot to post, was that I'm not surprised or suspicious of the outcome. It was close and would have been either way. No big surprise.

[davsand]

3. I dunno about the ether's opinion, but my own is that it is no big deal.

I think there is an increased national awareness about vote fraud and the security of the vote with electronic voting, but that in this case it is pretty unlikely that anything funky is going on. Honest to gosh, the exit polling reported at the time pretty much supports the outcome. From practical experience, I think that people do not always tell the truth about how they voted for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they just don't want to admit how they voted and sometimes they don't especially CARE to share that info and they make stuff up. That is just how it works. I have done polling on a local basis, and I have done voter ID work for campaigns, and I will tell you from personal observation that it is not an exact science.

I do think there has been a trend in the polls that shows Obama gaining ground on Hil (remember, up to about a week ahead of that election Hil was polling ahead of Obama) but I am not overly worried about this result. The woman was leading all along--how much of a shock can it be that she won? Any poll is only as good as the instrument used in the polling, and it is very plausible that polling in NH was just not as exact as we might like it to be.

On a personal level, from being someone that works inside government, I will tell you that there is NO such thing as a secret. If more than two people know about anything it is no secret--people talk. I have a very hard time buying into the idea that there is too much widespread "vote fixing" going on simply because if it was we'd be hearing a lot more about it from people that KNOW (rather than speculating) what actually happened. Do I think that there have been cases where things are manipulated? Yes, I do. Do I think it is as widespread as has been discussed? No. I really don't. Yes, I do think those machines can be hacked, but I find it very difficult to conceive of it happening on a grand scale with nobody actually talking about doing it.

Further, I honestly think that the GOP has more important things to worry about than rigging a Primary in ONE state for a Dem. The Repubs I know (and there are quite a few) honestly are not wanting to see a General Election with Hil as the nominee. If the polls continue to be so far off I may be forced to revise that opinion, but for now I am just not seeing an reason to think the Republicans are messing where they shouldn't be.

Lest anyone think I am bending over backward to justify Hil's win, remember, I have been pretty upfront about the fact that I am supporting Obama in this Primary. I have no personal interest in seeing her win, but in this case, I think the results are kosher.

YMMV.



Laura

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. My impression is one of unsettledness

and insecurity. This nomination won't be sewn up immediately like it was in 2004. I still have the feeling that things will come out to shake up the standings of the candidates, and that there will be violence against one of the candidates. This is just an impression, but I've had the feeling that the candidate won't die, but will be incapacitated, and that the event will really shake things up. The whole primary season will be intense and unsettled.

[stellanoir]

5. methinks something's foul in the Granite State

I felt it as soon as I got through with my gig on Tuesday evening and heard about the early returns versus the palpable momentum of Obama, prior to Hillary's dewey eyed moment and Monday's media declaration of failure for her.

81% of the voting machines in NH are insecure and highly hackable EVM's and optical scanners.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0801/S00057.htm

http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

The bottom line is we just don't know because the machines truly suck and results can't be verified.

I've listened to all sorts of people's various theories including dear ccpup's understandable distain with people ranting and throwing sour grapes around Wednesday morning.

Another factoid is for exit polls to be accurate with all the candidates except Hillary is more than a little curious.

How one revelatory moment of heartfelt expression, perhaps based in part on exhaustion could counter balance 15 years of exuding tough unimpassioned rhetoric is implausible also. IMHO

Why pollsters get demonized instead of the technology further scrutinized or monitored or remedied is just plain bogus when exit polls had been uncannily accurate prior to the degradation of our electoral process over 7 years ago is just nutz.

People who simply want an accurate verifiable vote tally are discredited routinely as conspiracy theorists. I've communicated with some of them for years.

I've been paying attention to this stuff since late '02 when HAVA was passed. It's a mess that not good for either party, our Democracy or having truly
representative leadership.

Yes Houston, we have a problem.

just my 2 cents (as cassie used to say)

[Why Syzygy]

6. It's all weirdness ...

I haven't heard anything specific about NH this time, other than upsets from the state about the push polling. I'm not paying a lot of attention, is there something specific?

I'm beginning to see elections as not representative of the people, but merely a tool of the elect to make believe they are chosen.

Cleita's post here pretty much says what I've felt for some time >>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=245&topic_id=60324&mesg_id=60386

~snipped
"I have felt all along that she would be the nominee no matter what setbacks or triumphs she suffered on the campaign trail. It's that the fix is in and the Washington insiders club has very deep roots."

[Dora]

7. Honey - didja mean to post that?

It's a craigslist ad.

I wish I needed a roomate!

[Why Syzygy]

8. lol ..

Yeah, she sounds great, doesn't she. Thanks for catching that. I just had time to edit.

[Hersheygirl]

9. Amen

You have just summed it correctly, unfortunately, some just can't get it in their heads that this election is just a sham. We no longer live in democracy. The corporations and those who have the wealth of the world have had their say and they run the show. It's not going to matter who runs against Hillary, she will be the nominee and the consequently the winner in November.

What gives me a chuckle is all the hoopla going on in GD and GDP. Like we really have a choice! Some like to say it's three way race and I say yes it is three way race and your choices are: Hillary, Hillary and Hillary. Now on the Republican side, they'll find a viable throw-a-way candidate (someone dumb enough to think they can win, you know, like Bob Dole, who didn't have a prayer of winning against Bill Clinton) to run. They (the GOP) has to know by now that they can't change the whats inevitable. Don't think for one moment anything is going to change when a Democrat returns to the WH. They are all cut from the same cloth, so to speak, after all the '06 election should have taught us all that lesson.

However, I do see things changing. We haven't yet hit bottom in this country, but the time will come when we do and then the people will rise up and make the changes necessary to swing the proverbial pendulum the opposite way. The change will be so subtle that we won't even recognize it until it happens.

The only thing I hope for is that I'm still around to see. What a glorious day that will be.

[PinkTiger]

13. Here are my impressions of all this:

There were no VOTING IRREGULARITIES. However, there were some some POLLING IRREGULARITES. Yes, we have hit upon something. New Hampshire voters are an independent bunch who pay no mind to how they are expected to vote. That is why the polling data had no effect on their voting pattern.
Sometimes it is the tail wagging the dog. This is one of those times.
I think the polling companies are purchased by the powers that be. I hate to say it, but there it is. People tend to go with the flow, and act they way they are "expected" to. This is a psychological thing. And all the endorsements for Obama and all that is part of the deal.
Look: the Republicans think they can beat a black candidate, but are terrified of having Hillary in the White House. They know that if she wins, the chickens will come home to roost, and hard.
I wish the people here at DU would wise up. They are being manipulated.

[stellanoir]

16. Here is an even handed and wise article IMHO

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x490496

We simply have no way of knowing whether there were or were not irregularities with these damned machines which are also owned by the powers that be.

The Bradblog link in that article has details about the owner of 81% of the machines in NH.

Why would the polling irregularities only apply to one candidate or party?

Others have said that Hillary has said she wouldn't pursue criminal investigations of the * administration.

So go figure.

Time will tell.

[Grateful for Hope]

14. On Greatest Page

Kucinich is asking for a recount in NH:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2656014

I think it is a good idea, and, I am glad he is asking for this. If there are any irregularities, we need to know about them.

[Stevepol]

15. The point is EVERY ELECTION SHOULD BE AUDITED

if it uses these infernal machines. That's common sense. We shouldn't have to pay for a recount just to feel that the election was fairly counted. If we had a democracy in the US we would have been doing this already from the very beginning. The only reason we don't audit is because we've turned the vote-counting over to private corporations who can count the votes and manipulate them as well at their own discretion. Probably most mistakes in this case are a result of the crappy machines used but the only way to find out is to recount. These companies own our democracy.

[BlueIris]

17. It's not too late. Manifest the candidacy you WANT to perservere.

I don't care if that person is your damn mailman. We don't have to take her—or any of them—simply because of what they claim.