Skinners feelings about the allegations of fraud in NH....in case you missed it:

[Harper_is_Bush]

Here's where we stand at this point:

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.

At this point everyone has said their piece, and nothing new is being added to the discussion. Nobody's mind is being changed. The topic has become both disruptive and divisive. Tomorrow I'm going to discuss this with the other admins. If this is still disrupting the General Discussion forums tomorrow, I think there is a good chance that we may move all of it over to the Election Reform forum. (Unless, of course, someone actually has some real evidence to support the claim of fraud. And by "real evidence" I mean real evidence.)

Now, I think I'm going to bed.

Oh, by the way... I don't think I ever congratulated Hillary supporters for your amazing win in New Hampshire. I'm sorry that you didn't get the chance to enjoy it here on DU as much as you might have liked. That's a bummer. Because it really was a stunning victory.

From topic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2646654&mesg_id=2646654

Good information and sound analysis from our admin, agree?

[Bonobo]

1. I don't think Skinner will welcome you characterizing his position.

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. Wha? I'm quoting him.

Did you realize that?

[Bonobo]

8. No, I did NOT realize that or I wouldn't have used the word "characterize". Sorry.

[Harper_is_Bush]

10. no prob.

:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

7. That is a direct quote

I went looking for it, because I made the same mistake.

[cloudythescribbler]

50. Skinner is a SHE .......

If she's the person I am almost sure she is, she was for many years a Berkeley CA City Councilperson. She is a progressive Democrat, a leader in the progressive Democrats' coalition in Berkeley called BCA (Berkeley Citizens' Action -- or 'bellydancing creationists of authenticity' depending on which you prefer LOL)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. skinner is the admin of this website and decidedly male identified

[Midlodemocrat]

53. Wrong. He's a guy. You're thinking of someone else.

[NNN0LHI]

71. I thought it was Nancy Skinner for the first few months I was here

I feel like such a doofus.


Don

[BarenakedLady]

54. His wife and kid will be shocked! (n/t)

[LynneSin]

58. Romeo won't be - I don't think he doubt that for a minute

damn dog

[rug]

55. You're confusing him with Elad.

[northzax]

56. well, I suppose his wife might wonder about that

is this the dirty secret they've been hiding in the moderator's hot tub parties?

btb: I can confirm that he's a he and lives in DC, or there is some major practical joke being played on us all.

[LynneSin]

57. I have met Skinner several times and I can assure you he is a he

These are the admin - and they are all "HE"

[sakabatou]

66. And EarlG is a fine writer.

[11 Bravo]

74. I'm willing to kick in to buy Elad a new shirt.

(Hey, we kid because we love!)

[NewJeffCT]

59. Nice post Tootsie

Skinner's a man, baby.

:evilgrin:

[Jamastiene]

72. Oh my.

:spray:

:popcorn:

[HughMoran]

75. Is this the PIece of research you were doing?

:rofl:

[Marrah_G]

2. ~cheer~

[UTUSN]

3. Oh, I thought you were saying his "feelings were HURT"!1 n/t

[napi21]

4. Thanks to Skinner for having a rare rational statement on this.

If there was reallty any hanky-panky, don't you think the candidates would be the first to start complaining?

[Bonobo]

9. Not if it cost them too much to complain, no. That is the biggest weak spot in Skinner's argument.

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. Not really. If any of them suspected anything sketchy they could have that put out there

without it appearing like it's coming from their own campaign.

[Bonobo]

16. How would they do that? You must have legal standing to make a complaint.

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. I'm talking about putting the suspicion out there...getting people talking about it...

that's all.

As Skinner mentions, there's not a whisper about it from any quarter.

It's not necessary to file a legal challange to communicate the suspicion of fraud to the public, is it?

And yet, nothing. Why? Crazy idea, but just maybe nobody (other than conspiracy theists here) actually suspect any fraud took place! Just something to consider.

[Bonobo]

26. You've contradicted yourself quite nicely.

You say the campaign could put out a "whisper" so as to not be tied to them.

Then you say "As Skinner mentions, there is not a whisper from any quarter"

Well, there's some serious whispering going on here. If you are correct that the campaign could "let it out there", how do you know that is not exactly what has been done?

[Harper_is_Bush]

35. I don't see it

I said they could put out a "whisper", yes. And I also said that there's been no whisper. How is that me contradicting myself? It isn't.

You go on to say there's been "whispering" here. It's you that would suggest what's happening here is the deliberate "whispering" of anyone in the know, not me. So, the contradiction is entirely in your mind.

What I see here is nothign but empty conjecture and suspicion mixed with a healthy dose of sour grapes.

I have not seen anything that approaches a legitimate "whisper" of actual impropriety.

No sir, I'm not contradicting myself at all. The accusation is nonsensical.

[Bonobo]

38. I am saying if it was intentionally whispered by a campaign, you would be unable

to tell whether these posts on DU represent the campaign.

No big deal either way.

I just want verifiable elections.

It's not like we didn't already know those machines were hackable. They never should have been allowed to be used.

Since 2000, this country has not yet addressed the voter fraud issue. That is why it is still popping up and will continue to pop up.

Voter fraid in the US has gone from "No way" to "No way anyone knows".

[cloudythescribbler]

51. Some people have on DU (eg the chart showing divergence greatest in NH depending on voting method )

You know, it's easy to say "THERE's no EVIDENCE" but on the threads where people have brought up very INTERESTING evidence on DU, no one really refutes it -- so much easier just to categorically trash in some other forum, to a chorus of 'thank yous'.

Incidentally, my own mind is still very open on this question

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. self Delete

[gratuitous]

11. So . . .

They've gotten to Skinner, too.

:hide:

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. If you read the topic it came from with an objective view maybe you'll be "gotten to" as well.

I hope the admins do decide to put an end to the conspiracy/fraud threads in GD tomorrow. Enough is enough.

[Marrah_G]

17. I think the poster was teasing you.

[lonestarnot]

WTF is "gotten to?"

[Kurovski]

20. It's a joke.

I thought it was pretty funny.

[Harper_is_Bush]

21. why are you asking me? Ask the poster I quoted.

I understand what the term means, as I suspect you do. For the context, read the post I quoted.

[lonestarnot]

73. I will and I did.

Is gotten a fucking word? Not last time I checked.

[Xipe Totec]

13. Oh, yea, I forgot to congratulate them. I'm sorry

Congratulations to the Hillary Clinton campaign for a well fought battle in New Hampshire.

You guys did great, and you deserve accolades.

This, from a guy who supports neither Hillary, nor Barack.

:applause:

If she wins the Democratic primaries, I will of course support her run for the presidency wholeheartedly.

Until then, see you in the next battle state!

[EFerrari]

14. Appeal to authority. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

18. There comes a time when you either believe in the system or you don't

If you don't believe in the system, then we're screwn anyway.

There's no point in having an election, if no one trusts the outcome anyway.

Might as well let Chimpie keep running the country as emperor.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. wrong... and having grown in a country where election fraud was

a regular thing... I know that YOU VOTE, and YOU VOTE, and YOU VOTE....

Even if you believe the system is broken... which I do. Make the bastards work to steal your vote!

The desired result IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING!

[Xipe Totec]

29. So you are accusing Democrats of rigging elections?

Is that your position?

[Whisp]

62. There is another way to look at it...

I would accuse the Diebolders and ilk of fixing it the way they want -
skewing it towards someone who will continue on their behalf - more wars, more cash, more robbery from the taxpayers.
The candidate doesn't even have to be aware of this - their egos is all that is required as far as complicity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. wrong... and having grown in a country where election fraud was

a regular thing... I know that YOU VOTE, and YOU VOTE, and YOU VOTE....

Even if you believe the system is broken... which I do. Make the bastards work to steal your vote!

The desired result IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING!

[mondo joe]

24. Indeed. If you don't believe any national election can be trusted, why bother with

national politics at all?

[EFerrari]

28. Because it is our constitutional right to have clean elections?

[mondo joe]

32. That doesn't aswer the question. If you don't believe the election is real,

why participate in what you think is a sham?

[Bonobo]

39. Irrelevant. To not participate would be greater foolishness. Your question is misguided.

[RuleOfNah]

49. Because voter turnout alone seems to be scaring 'them'?

Because voting is public protest that can not be put in a protest cage?

Because voting is more important than votes?

I have heard that elected representatives use multipliers to determine public interest on a given issue. "We received N emails, N letters, N phone calls, N faxes; clearly we must flip or flop." Often their first instinct is to ignore the contacts, then maybe ridicule the contacts, then censor the contacts, then they lose. Ignoring millions of people in every state, city, town, and farm is foolish, even for the greatest of criminals. 90% of being ignored is showing up. That's why.

[EFerrari]

64. Because opting out of elections is not a solution to dirty elections.

[Junkdrawer]

61. Actually, I'm more likely to trust a Studio Wrestling match...

than a US Presidential race these days.

[EFerrari]

68. Is it too late to run Hulk Hogan? The Beautiful Elizabeth could be an asset

on the road. :)

[Kurovski]

25. No other way, huh?

Just "lay back and take it, nothing to be done about it, anyway"?

[Xipe Totec]

30. Show your proof

Lay your cards on the table.

I'm tired of the innuendo.

If you have facts, let's see them.

Otherwise, respectfully or not,

STFU.

[althecat]

46. Evidence is not proof but it is evidence..

Now that is a bit rude there. But lets ignore that. What standard of proof do you want precisely. We have:

Motive
Opportunity
Access
Footprints at the crime scene (strange numeric anomalies)
&
A public outcry and desire for investigation
Damage to the perception of voting system integrity (and there has been quite a lot of damage in that area already).

In this case there is a very simple way to settle the argument. Count the ballots. The argument seems to be that we should shut up because we cannot prove something and yet nor should anyone - it seems - bother to even look to see if its true. From the outset the beleivers in the system have made this unsupportable argument.

I personally do not know if there was Fraud in New Hampshire. I think the numbers are odd. I do not trust the computers. I think there should be a recount.

So Mr Totec....

You lay your cards on the table. Should there be a recount or not? If not why not?

[EFerrari]

27. I guess I've never been a big believer. Don't make me quote Reagan.

And, it seems as though we will have an election and that we must fight for its integrity.

Holding two opposing ideas at the same time. :)

[Kip Humphrey]

31. Skinner should be corralling the HillBilly sheeple until the election is verified by hand counting

I don't care who won in NH beyond assuring who won. If Hillary won, I will celebrate an incredible historic event for the U.S.. I will tell my grandkids (when I have some). I want to know that she won. Right now, I don't know that.

[Marrah_G]

40. HillBilly Sheeple- gee you are really witty

And call your candidate since THEY are the one who has to request the hand count.

[Catherine Vincent]

33. Skinners or Skinner's?

:)

[Harper_is_Bush]

36. Skinner's

:toast:

[JackRiddler]

34. Here's a Point 5 that does not contradict but fulfills Points 1-4.

5) A hand-count of the optiscan ballots would serve to confirm points 1-4, as expected. Or, if such a hand-count shows results in contradiction to points 1-4, unlikely as that may seem, it would in effect save the Republic from usurpation by electronic election fraud. Therefore a hand-count of the optiscan ballots is desirable.

In other words: Isn't it better to know than to make intelligent guesses?

[Ichingcarpenter]

42. No, you should trust history and the technology

New Hampshire primary 1988: Allegations of voting machine election fraud
Analysts hypothesize this morning that the last-minute Clinton vote in the New Hampshire primary was partly a matter of Barack Obama's race. But would Dennis Kucinich supporters and Bill Richardson supporters have made a last-minute turn to Clinton in the voting booth because of 'race'?

Maybe a walk down memory lane would help explain.

Among the wickedest recent examples of possible computerized vote fraud, of the sort that has disillusioned millions of Americans, is the 1988 New Hampshire primary that saved George Bush from getting knocked out of the race to the White House. – James M. Collier, Kenneth F. Collier



‘Comeback’ what? --

The authors of the little book Votescam, the Collier brothers, discussed the 1988 Republican New Hampshire primary at some length. The upset by George H. W. Bush in New Hampshire, confounding every poll before the tallies, was pivotal in Bush’s winning the 1988 election and becoming president:

“The Bush campaign of 1988, as historians have since recollected it, was filled with CIA-type disinformation operations and deceptions of the sort that America used in Viet Nam, Chile and the Soviet Union. Since George Bush was one of the most admired CIA directors in the history of the organization, this was not so surprising.

Yet George Bush . . . had suffered a terrible political wound when Dole won big by a show of hands in an unriggable Iowa caucus. Bush came to New Hampshire with all the earmarks of a loser whom the press had come to identify as a ‘wimp.’

Political observers were downbeat in their observations of Bush’s chances in the face of Dole’s Iowa momentum. Virtually every television and newspaper poll had Bush losing by up to eight points just hours before the balloting.

. . . When election day was over the following headline appeared in the Washington Post: “NEW HAMPSHIRE CONFOUNDED MOST POLLSTERS; Voters Were a Step Ahead of Tracking Measurements.”

Here is the lead of WP reporter Lloyd Grove’s article after the primary:

“For Vice President Bush and his supporters, Tuesday’s 9-percentage-point victory over Sen. Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) in New Hampshire was a delightful surprise; for Andrew Kohut, it was a horror story.

Kohut is president of the Gallup poll, whose final New Hampshire survey was wrong by 17 points: it had put Dole ahead by 8; Bush won by 9. “I was dismayed,” Kohut acknowledged yesterday.

This New Hampshire primary was perhaps the most polled primary election in American history, and in the end, the Republican voters in the state confounded the predictions of nearly every published survey of voter opinion.”


http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/1/9/3455407.html

[SIMPLYB1980]

37. K&R!

[Bumblebee]

41. Please do, please do, Skinner!!

I want to be able to like Obama and vote for him if he is a nominee but his irrational supporters here are making it so difficult!

[LostinVA]

43. Did you post this in GDP?

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. Skinner et al -- do you plan on banising race-based mispolling issue to Election Reform dungeon?

If it is disruptive, why does it belong in Election Reform
unless that forum is viewed as a generalized "dungeon" for
ALL allegations of election fraud that mainstream Dems find
equally dubious?

I'm not going to suggest that any mods have a preference in this
contest, but coming on DU for the first time since the primaries,
this parental threat sounds awfully defensive.

Would it be phrased the same if Edwards had come on top and
Hillary supporters made similar (similarly dubious) allegations??
Hmmmmmm.

Note, If anyone screwed with an election it would not be Hillary.

I can only imagine people think (they are most probably wrong,
but why does it matter so much to the mods? why side with one
side over the other in a factual dispute between two candidates
supporters?) I can only imagine that the people making this
allegation, unaware of the 10% race polling factor, wrongly assume
someone rigged the vote because they want Hillary to lose in November

(which we all know she would, BTW, although it's impolite to say so on TV.)

It's not anti-Hillary Clinton to suggest such a thing,
dubious as it may be.

I for one resent the notion that every dubious allegation of
vote fraud would be deliberately "dumped" on a serious issue
forum, Election Fraud that the mods apparently feel is a
catch-all group for any and all election fraud discussion
that is safely out of the way.

Apparently allegations of election fraud (however dubious
or realistic) is useful in November when it gets us to hate
Republicans. The rest of the time it is unproductive.

That's not a very fact based approach to the issue.

it's a bad approach to assert that the issue matters in November,
is not disruptive in December, that disruptivity to a fellow
Democrat is the best counterargument instead of factual correction.

Dubious as this allegation may be when racial mispolling
(as mentioned by Tweety, even) is so much easier an explanation.

[Leopolds Ghost]

45. Should we banish discussion of 2004 vote fraud until real evidence is found?

After all, the I-hate-Kerry people -- who are now supporting all three
major candidates -- can't make up their minds if he won or not, if the
election is stolen or not, and people keep pointing out the lack of a
smoking gun that Kerry could have used. There is no real evidence --
and by "real evidence" I mean real evidence. Isn't all such
election reform therefore disruptive?

Remember I always advocate fairness even when it's politically unpopular.

One of the reasons our societal growth is stunted is that most political
speech is no longer done in the public realm, it is done in the private
realm, on privately-owned blogs that are perforce self-censoring.

DU is one of the better blogs, certainly for scope, and a good place to
cry on the shoulder of a like-minded person in times of trial...
at least for me.

(although I must say I've seen fascinatingly articulate responses on
mainstream media-based blogs that are both highly educated, well-written,
include non-monomaniacal analyses of controversial issues like this one...
include a range of political views... and many of the "liberal posters"
are to the left of your average DUer, amazingly enough.
Many highly-educated liberals I talk to seem to gravitate to open
forums. They seem jaded to the idea of partisanship, much less
primary candidate partisanship. Like NH voters, maybe they just want
to feel free to change their minds, they don't believe in "loyalty"
to a candidate. Just some constructive feedback,) --LG

[Harper_is_Bush]

47. I think such issues are already "banished" to the Election Reform forum, which is where admins will

consider relegating this new issue.

You can understand, if it were not the case then GD would become a cesspool of full-time argument and disruption.

[Leopolds Ghost]

48. I don't have a problem with it, if the mods decided that all election stealing discussion is CT.

We should remember that in November (when Huckabee is likely to beat
Hillary soundly) and banish any discussion of vote-stealing to the
Election Reform dungeon. It's not up to the mods to evaluate factual
evidence on a case by case basis, after all. Only a jury can do that.

[surfermaw]

60. Hillary's winning is this simple

She or Bill Clinton knew where to campaign the last hours and days, in the counties where the college crowd was, he picked enough Obama supporters to turn the election, I wouldn't be suprised if Edwards and Richardson wasn't in the same counties, I am ashamed as I have already posted that I don't know where Edwards was campaigning in the last hours, although I am an Edwards supporter and will be until the dogs come home....Remember Bill Clinton grew up in the South were winning primaries was every thing.. And he was taught well, so was Carter he knew how to win in primaries.

[EFerrari]

65. Simply being able to come up with a story is not the same as

being able to know your election was clean.

Wouldn't it be great if we did know NH was clean and could just either congratulate or cuss out Clinton on that basis?

:)

[crawfish]

63. There are big discrepancies...

in both the Obama and Paul vote counts in hand-counted vs. diebold counties. Perhaps that's due to the population shift, perhaps not; but it should flag some type of investigation.

I just don't want to blindly sit by while the power base alters elections for their own purposes.

[EFerrari]

67. Yes. That's right. n/t

[RiverStone]

77. It's all about Diebold!

I don't get why some folks can't seem to grasp that this is not about sour grapes; Diebold counted 81% of all the votes in NH.

We want transparent elections with verifiable paper trails.

Thats it - regardless of who won or lost.

Diebold needs to be shit canned!

[Common Sense Party]

69. Oh, come on, now. We all know it's only Repukes who do vote fraud.

Except when we win. Then, I guess, they didn't.

But all the other times, they do.

Until they don't again.

:shrug:

[Dawggie]

70. K&R to keep this near the top. Recommend it folks to get it on the front page!

[Richard Steele]

76. Get a clue, chump.

nm