Breaking!!!!!!!!!! Kucinich asks for Recount in NH!

[ORDagnabbit]

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-asks-for-new-hampshire-recount-in-the-interest-of-election-integrity/

[HCE SuiGeneris]

1. Hell yes Dennis. Thank you.

[file83]

224. UPDATE: Apparently Dennis saw a UFO hovering over one of the precincts...

:popcorn:


(Oh come now...it's a little funny, isn't it?)

[Kurovski]

235. Oh yes.

Yes, it is.

Is it yours?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

239. Not really. I saw a UFO several years ago and witnessed it with 6 neighbors.

It wasn't something that was an obscure light high in the sky, but some sort of large craft that traveled just over the treetops where we live.

So I'm not laughing, as I don't laugh about possible election fraud.

[jbnow]

260. I'm never sure why Dennis

is mocked for seeing something that was unidentified and flying and an object.

Seeing it doesn't make one strange. Dennis didn't bring it up at the debate and it didn't belong in it.

I knew someone who lived in Phoenix and stood outside with her family and neighbors watching that huge, silent, hovering thing going over their neighborhood.

People see what is before them to see. Well not always. I don't think election irregularities are funny or something to ignore either.

[Progressive Radical]

331. We've all seen UFOs ..

The fact that we've all seen something we couldn't identify, that it was flying, and that it was an object shouldn't be cause for concern. Everyone since time immemmorial has seen UFOs.

UFOs aren't synonomous with "alien spacecraft" and the like. The very definition of a UFO is explicit in the three words that make up the acronym. Why people laugh at this idea is beyond me.

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object

What's funny, mysterious, or spooky and crazy about that? :shrug:

[klook]

342. I bet the majority of Americans think

UFO = space ship. This is the same kind of fuzzy thinking that makes it possible to convince many people that evolution is "just a theory." Still, I'm guessing there are a lot of Americans who've seen UFOs themselves but still would prefer elected officials who don't mention their UFO sightings.

Anyway...we were talking about possible vote fraud, weren't we? If there's even a hint of fraud, it should be investigated.

[Progressive Radical]

431. I agree. n/t

[puebloknot]

271. Likewise, my daughter and I saw a UFO (emphasis on "unidentified")...

...right on the edge of Los Angeles, on a ridge across from our condo. There were news reports the next day that a UFO had been reported by a number of people in the Santa Monica area.

Those who ridicule simply don't know what they don't know. And like you, I'll apply that statement to UFOs and elections.

It's really funny to get cheated out of your vote!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

354. me neither ! Hi OSO !

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

440. Hi Laura! And A Belated

Happy New Year!!!!

:hi:

[TheWatcher]

264. No, it isn't.

[Lasher]

299. Well, for what it's worth I think it's funny.

[humbled_opinion]

320. I have to say the worst thing

About having contact with a UFO is the anal probing... I remember my first encounter.... something i don't wish on anybody.... :hurts:

[Progressive Radical]

332. Your anus was probed by an Unidentified Flying Object?

At what altitude were you when this flying object anally probed you? If it was within proximity (assuming it was near your anus, why couldn't you identify it?). At that point, wouldn't have become an IFO?

[humbled_opinion]

336. Well..

If I remember correctly the Alien beings seduced me into their UFO craft as we were rounding the solar system i was exposed to Ur anus.... which if I remember correctly was probed before mine and then I was returned to earth and asked never to speak of the incident again... hmmm:evilgrin:

[Progressive Radical]

430. That explains ...

... that uncontrollable itch!

:hurts:

:evilgrin:

[flasoapbox]

334. LOL @ that pic

Very funny and accurate! Also, go Dennis!

[tavalon]

409. No, it was probably just fleeing democracy

Kudos on him. I need to send him more money. He isn't going to win but he's decided to keep the fuckers honest.

[rhett o rick]

424. Very non-Democratic. Are you a freeper? or just a Demo with a bad, very bad

sense of humor???

[AngryOldDem]

434. Sorry, I don't get the snark here

Isn't this EXACTLY what a lot of us have been calling for since 2004? To challenge shady poll results in the interest of election integrity?

I'm glad Kucinich is doing this, even if it changes nothing in the end. If the questions aren't asked, if someone doesn't speak up, if election officials aren't held accountable, then we all lose the right to cry foul when 2004 happens again and again and again and again...

What if Kerry had had the balls to do this in Ohio in 2004?

[LakeSamish706]

2. Good for Dennis, I was hoping a Democratic Candidate would get around to doing this. n/t

[RiverStone]

155. Damn right on DK!

As long as Diebold is doing the counting, the results are suspect.

It has NOTHING TO DO with sour grapes; it has EVERYTHING to do with an open and transparent election process.

Thats all we want (and to have Diebold pulled from anything to do with our elections).

:kick: K&R!!!!!!

[Marrah_G]

3. Great! did he officially ask NH for one?

If he sets up a fund let me know- I'll kick in what little I can.

[Bonn1997]

Funding the recount?

Let me know too if he sets up a fund.

[cyberpj]

115. "sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election"

:applause:

I especially like the part at the end of the page about doing this now in order to identify and fix problems before the November Presidential election. Good move Dennis! I'll contribute, just for this move.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-asks-for-new-hampshire-recount-in-the-interest-of-election-integrity/

[Marrah_G]

120. I meant does he have to file papers or will just a letter do?

[cyberpj]

134. Oh.

Don't know that part. But I'm guessing he will do whatever's legally required if he's gone this far. And if he needs contributions to fund it himself, no doubt he'll get them. This issue's time has come.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

355. wow, when the turnaround?

[Bucky]

4. Ah, jeeze, not this shit again

Skinner said these posts belong in another forum.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. Heil Bucky!. Don't care for voting transparency?

[tkmorris]

18. What's the problem?

If the recount doesn't reveal any discrepancies, than all is well. If it does, well, wouldn't you want that exposed?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. Well, if they counted all votes in two ways, there would be no problems.

But they won't do that, important as voting is.

[jasmine621]

38. Headline: Dems don't even believe their own voting process!!

Any challenge of Dem vs Repuke will just be a laugh now. Can't get anything right? WTF!
We are designing our own demise.

[annabanana]

51. A repug called for their recount days ago.. (see below in thread), , n.t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

63. Your "concern" is duly noted.

[Junkdrawer]

80. The Democratic Party doesn't count it's own votes...

The State SOS in each state is in charge of that. And, in NH, it's been outsourced to a dubious private firm.

LHS Associates.

[Recursion]

390. Why *is* a purely intra-party function like a primary...

...using state infrastructure like this, anyways? I've always wondered that about primaries.

[Mister Ed]

99. "Their own voting process". Does the Democratic Party run the primary elections in NH?

Just checking.

BTW, I think it's generally a mistake to let fear of being ridiculed by the neocons or M$M determine our choices. They're sure to do that in any event. I mean, really. You nominate a combat hero and they make him out to be a lyin' coward.

[Kurovski]

197. Headline: Your Headline is Bullshit.

:-) Repukes own Diebold (Premier). REPUKES (Republicans) own it. you do know what Repukes are, don't you? And we don't trust them these days. Do you?

Diebold (Premier) owns the machines and counts our votes, they are Republican owned. Got that newsflash? Now please remember it. Spread it far and wide.

Much more accurate than that which you've signed on to post.

[Swamp Rat]

203. !

:loveya:

[AikidoSoul]

263. Er..81% of the ballots are counted by DIEBOLD machines

DIEBOLD is a partisan REPUBLICAN owned company.

You need to catch up on at least 7 years of research kiddie

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richard Steele]

110. Please consider your utter lack of concern to be "duly noted", won't you?

NM

[helderheid]

172. no he didn't. He said speculation belonged in another forum. This is fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. I have two words for you... CUYAHOOGA OH

many like you laughed it up... people are IN JAIL over that shit

You do have a problem with transparency, don't you?

[Kurovski]

208. Aw, Bucky honey....what did daddy say when you told him?

:hug:

[TheWatcher]

266. That's right, dear little lamb.

Nothing exists, nothing's real, government loves you, the process is untainted and perfect, and anything you can't accept as a possible reality is conspiracy whackery.

So fire up the DVR, and let's get lost in a Dancing With The Stars Rerun.

Democracy, Rule Of Law, Fariness and Transparency are boring, overrated, and tedious, and force us to think, which is no fun at all.

All that matters is feeling good, and the perception that All Is Well In Pleasantville.

[JackRiddler]

275. Did you read what Skinner wrote?

One of his four points was that no candidate had stepped forward to ask for a recount.

A candidate has now done so, and that is NEWS.

Why does the issue threaten you so?

[Ignis]

358. Oh, you and your "FACTS"--they just get in the way!

Now we have to pack the torches and pitchforks back up again. :(

[JackRiddler]

372. huh?

[Ignis]

381. You actually read what Skinner wrote.

That's a good thing. :)

Some have overlooked the details in their rush to decry any sort of recount action.

[JackRiddler]

374. huh?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Good for Dennis.

We cannot allow any question of irregularity get swept under the rug. Election integrity is all that stands between democracy and despotism.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Quick. To the dungeon. To the dungeon. Def Con 4. To the dungeon.

Ahhhh Oooo Gaaa
Ahhhh Oooo Gaaa

[Generator]

153. LOL!

Let's discuss this for a certain amount of time, then shuffle it under yesterday's news.

[LakeSamish706]

7. Even if NH was on the up and up... Just the fact that they are using...

those nasty touch screens is reason enough to want a hand count.

[Snotcicles]

Make them recount every election when touch screens are used . nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

87. Or electronic scanners...

Prove that the machines cannot be compromised (as they have been in the past) and we can move forward. Otherwise, this whining about "it is going to hurt us" is pitiful drivel. Having elections stolen has hurt us immensely already.

[snot]

252. I like that!

and your name.

[Occulus]

283. Some people aren't getting that point.

I'll leave it to you to decide in which camp they fall, but the point is, any and all elections in which Diebold voting machines are used return unverifiable results. Unless and until that is fixed, they aren't qualified to be used to elect a dogcatcher.

This is not about accusing Democrats of fraud, this is about verifying the results returns by a company whose equipment has been shown to be hackable, and which is being decertified all over the country. Nor is this about the Clinton campaign- I do not care who won as far as this issue is concerned; I only care that the Diebold machines were used and the results are thus questionable.

This isn't about "sour grapes", but accurate results.

[MADem]

397. They aren't using touch screens in NH. They use PAPER ballots and opscan machines

Each voter gets a piece of paper, fills in the oval by their candidate's name, and feeds it into a machine. Those ballots are counted by the machine and sit in the hopper awaiting a recount if needed.

They can count by machine or by hand--they have the papers that each voter filled out.

[geiger]

8. another ridiculous publicity stunt.

[annabanana]

15. (just like the calls for recounts in Ohio '04, right?). . . .

fry ice

[Pawel K]

369. Ohio 04 didn't match the exit polls

these results did. If he wanted to make a difference he should be introducing legislation to ban these machines, not pulling this bullshit.

[Orsino]

442. There ought to be recounts every time...

...those goddamned machines are used. It's a shame that exit polling is the only check on privatized balloting, when only time and money stand between us and further validation.

[Warren Stupidity]

Why is it ridiculous to want an audit of the machine tabulated results?

Please explain why we should trust the machine count.

[RiverStone]

168. It makes tons of sense!

What's ridiculous are folks saying those of us wanting Diebold shit canned along with a transparent, verifiable, and paper trailed election process are screaming NH sour grapes.

Forget who won or lost in NH.

Remember that for any candidate USA, Diebold (own by a very partisan rethug) - should never, ever touch or count your vote. 81% of those votes in NH were counted by this machine.

Dennis is doing the right thing and I'm very appreciative he has the guts to challenge the status quo!

Let me know if anyone answers your good question Warren. :hi:

[truedelphi]

214. We robots must accept the commands of our masters

Machines are good. Trust in the Diebold!

Robots must obey. Robots must not question authorities.

HR Bill 1957 says those who offer resistance can be charged with incubating home grown terrorism.
Their power packs will be nont be charged again.

Please accept what the M$M told you Tuesday night. Please accept.

[bdamomma]

329. we need to investigate this, or our electoral process is in jeopardy

do we really need another stolen election, and another repig in the WH???? Give to Dennis for the recount, people approached him on his and he is doing the peoples' work.

[EFerrari]

66. Too bad more Democrats don't pull more of these publicity stunts

that support democracy.

lol

[rhett o rick]

427. Bravo. nm

[helderheid]

175. Democracy is so like, old, ya'know, k?

[Kurovski]

204. Wha..."publicity stunt" ?

(Self-deleted in case anyone is having dinner while reading.)

[subsuelo]

227. Thanks for the standard Fox News response

[Marr]

362. It's amazing to me how fast some people can become the people they claim to oppose.

Every negative comment I've seen in this thread-- every one of them-- are things I heard from Republicans in 2000 and 2004. Did you think those elections were all on the up-and-up, or are you fine with potential election fraud, so long as your candidate wins?

[rhett o rick]

426. What an intellegent and intelectual response. Are you really a Democrat. Sounds like a freeper

reaction. Democrats believe in transparency. I wouldn't hold it against anyone that didn't trust the election system.

[Moochy]

441. Stunts like 'Accountability' and 'Transparency' and 'Trust'

[annabanana]

10. Wowzers!. .I love this guy!. . . n/t

[madokie]

64. Me too I wish we could live in a world where he had a chance to be our president

I know I'm taking a defeatist attitude but this time I don't think he has a chance, so sad for that too

[rhett o rick]

428. Me toooo. Wish other so called Democrats would take a lesson. nm

[davidwparker]

11. Go, Dennis. Go, Dennis. Go, Dennis.

[Naturyl]

12. What for?

I like Kucinich, but this seems pointless and unnecessary. It's not going to help his credibility, either.

[annabanana]

20. Why not?. . .

Kucinich is a bigger man than to worry about that.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

30. Jesus. What for? Are you serious?

How about validating the votes? Is that not important to you?

[Naturyl]

39. Why is a recount needed to do that?

I don't believe the Diebold stuff, at least when it comes to the NH primary. I think the results can be attributed to media influence and similar factors.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

46. You are satisfied, your decision. I would like verification of the voting scanners veracity.

The anomalies have yet to be explained to my satisfaction.

[LakeSamish706]

78. I'm with you and especially given the abnormalities of exit polls and touch screens...

being used in NH.

[SoxFan]

NH doesn't use touch screens

NH uses paper ballots and optical scanner ballots.

Ralph Nader pulled this same stunt after the 2004 election. The recount showed absolutely no evidence of any subterfuge. The hand count of the scanner ballots matched the machine tally almost exactly.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

124. The tallies are compiled electronically and stored on digital media.

This is called in any other environment -- quality control. Any smart business conducts such practices.

[annabanana]

52. Doesn't matter. Transparency is the issue.. . . n/t

[Habibi]

55. Well, bully for you.

Apparently somebody who gives a shit has a problem with "the Diebold stuff." Let him have at it. What's it to you? I mean, really?

[Kurovski]

237. Because doing a recount will get Dennis another hot wife.

Then he can finally go Mormon, thus raising his poll numbers by 21 points.

Didn't you read the article??!! :shrug:

[FogerRox]

Very wrong

1)Obama's condescending comment to Hillary in the debate.

2) Hillary's tearing up.

3) 40% undecided DEM voters in a lot of polling prior to voting.

4) Think Sarasota count FL, 16% undervote rate....

5) Penn, '04, one county had a 8.9% undervote rate, the lowest was .29%

Need I continue......

[stevietheman]

318. You mean Hillary's "Iron my shirts" plant didn't pull it out for her? n/t

n/t

[zanne]

323. I agree with that one.

Just a little hand made sign got women so pissed off in NH, they went to the polls in droves to vote for Hillary. It certainly pissed me off, and I'm an Obama supporter.

[FogerRox]

353. What about Obama's condescending comment in the debate ?

I would offer that Most NH voters saw the debate, I'll bet not so many were even aware of the "Iron my shirts" incident.

[stevietheman]

437. His comment was cute, not condesending. n/t

n/t

[MADem]

401. Those guys worked for a Boston radio station. They were shock jock employees, not plants. NT

[stevietheman]

438. yeah, and hired by the Hillary campaign. n/t

n/t

[MADem]

446. That's a blatant untruth. Way to slander, there, though. Immature as hell, but

you're certainly persistent in your mouth-breathing prevarications.

[stevietheman]

448. It's the truth, because anyone with half a brain knows that...

what they did was invariably going to help Hillary.

[MADem]

449. Keep displaying your profound lack of knowledge. And keep prevaricating, too, while you're at it.

You seem to know a lot about operating with half a brain. But you don't seem to have a grip on the facts.

[ronnykmarshall]

383. ass

[stevietheman]

436. It was absolutely a plant and you know it. n/t

n/t

[Enthusiast]

304. Naturyl said:

"I don't believe the Diebold stuff, at least when it comes to the NH primary. I think the results can be attributed to media influence and similar factors."

Why think or believe, why not find the truth? Election fraud is designed to make you accept the results without a fight. What are you afraid of?

[ima_sinnic]

146. oh, DUH.

sheesh. whatever.

[Kokonoe]

179. Putting the credibility of the election above his own self.

[loudsue]

377. Like the corporate media didn't already destroy his "public" credibility

Because those who know him privately, KNOW he is very credible, and more sane/honest than any of the front-runners. Only those who are uninformed or intentionally snarky question Dennis's credibility.

[Individualist]

13. Standing up for what's right as always!

:applause:

[Nite Owl]

14. Thank you Dennis!

nothing wrong with knowing the truth whatever way it falls.

[Hatchling]

16. Will they do it for him? nt.

[Alexander]

17. Wouldn't that be interesting if Hillary's victory turned into another Obama win?

Assuming a recount happens, of course.

[annabanana]

24. utterly beside the point. . don't care if it doesn't change a thing...

The point is that there will be transparency.

[Alexander]

49. Me either. I just want to be sure that the winner won fair and square.

Then again, I highly doubt there was fraud.

[rhett o rick]

425. I am with you. If you like DK or not, and if you are a Democrat you should support transparency. nm

[WinkyDink]

25. Not to mention a more decisive HRC victory.

[Alexander]

53. True. Whoever's on top after the recount will look good.

Hillary will look good if she maintains her lead, because the transparency advocates won't have a reason to think it was stolen.

Obama will look particularly good if he suddenly becomes the winner. Even better, the media will look bad.

[MADem]

402. And if the results do stay the same, there will be research into any connections

between either the JE or BO campaigns and the DK campaign. If any money changed hands, or if cash found its way into DK's congressional race coffers, life could get interesting.

I'm not averring that will happen, or did happen, but it will be scrutinized.

I am betting, though, if HRC keeps the lead, there will be people who still insist that she cheated. They'll say she found a way to stuff the boxes, or something. If there's a single vote that was recorded wrong there will be an "Ah ha!" accusation or two. There always is when it comes to her.

[annabanana]

56. Also a possibility. . . doesn't bother me.

And I'm no big Hillary fan...

[EFerrari]

74. Wouldn't be nice just know what happened?

Either way, all ways, just to know?

[chimpymustgo]

117. It's just like getting a receipt, you know. No harm, no foul, but a RECORDED validation.

This is great news. I'm ready to send money.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

131. Quality control? Never seen such rebellion

against a common practice. I find it very odd.

[ieoeja]

351. I never thought of it in those terms before. You are 100% correct.

While this is admittedly for something not all that important -- just who gets to be the most powerful individual in the world for awhile -- the machine counts should be verified by human count.

If my employer can audit each of our offices every three years, why can the states not audit their presidential elections every four years?

[Kurovski]

223. I wonder how the damage-control folks are handling this one?

How will they interfere, intrude or otherwise try to screw this up? They must be scrambling now. It's like a "Premier" for them! How exciting! :bounce:

(That is of course, IF there was any election tampering.)

[EFerrari]

233. Just having anyone checking must be upsetting in some circles,

whether it was clean or not.

[Kurovski]

240. It's bad publicity for Diebold (Premier). (nt)

[Marr]

363. Exactly- I'm not a Clinton supporter, but if she remains the winner in

a recount, I'd be just as happy as if she loses it. I want to believe our election process is functional, and not just a system to be gamed by a handful of establishment figures.

[loudsue]

382. I'm with you. If Clinton -- or ANYBODY--won with a fair & true count, I support that decision.

But for the past 13 years, I haven't been AT ALL sure that any of the counts have been fair & true. There are too many republican/corporatist cooks stirring the election pot, and the evidence shows that they are NOT in favor of clean elections.

[gkhouston]

395. the idea that our elections are decided by hardware and software

that was probably selected for being the lowest bid isn't too appealing, either. Who's cutting corners with our future?

[Yuugal]

19. WOW! Go Dennis!

I'm for Edwards but this isn't a candidate issue. This is a democracy issue.

[sunonmars]

23. and one that can do countless damage to the Democrats

You thought of that?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

33. Bullshit. It is about the veracity of the votes. Period. Quality Control.

[annabanana]

37. A Repug has ALREADY called for a recount....

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/NEWS06/80110061

[Truth2Tell]

169. Albert Howard?

This guy got himself on the NH Republican Presidential primary ballot but on no other state ballots. Then he got 44 votes.

If only he can just get this recount.... the nomination will be in the bag.

[LakeSamish706]

47. How the hell would you arrive at that conclussion? Harm to the Democrats? Huh! n/t

[Alexander]

57. Transparency in voting is "countless damage" to the Democrats?

That's funny, I thought not having transparency does "countless damage" to democracy.

Maybe that's just me. :shrug:

[Naturyl]

84. It does "countless damage" to our image (n/t)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

97. Bullshit. Sitting around doing nothing when democracy is at stake

does countless damage to our country.

[Naturyl]

121. That's fine

And you have every right to feel that way, but it doesn't make what I said "bullshit." The image of Democrats is damaged by this stuff, rightly or wrongly. This is just an indisputable fact we can see in evidence. Our opponents get a hold of this stuff and have a field day with it.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

139. So out of fear... we should do nothing. Already seen how effective that is.

FWIW, the GOP has asked for a recount as well.

GOP link here:http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/NEWS06/80110061/1008/NEWS

[Naturyl]

145. Fear isn't necessarily the reason

We also might not see a need for a recount because no major candidate has suggested that anything suspicious happened.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

152. Maybe the "major" candidate is afraid of the scorn you are speaking about?

[Naturyl]

165. Maybe. No way to know, I guess.

Well, here's hoping that if there was anything irregular, they find it.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

171. I want to celebrate the victories of our candidates secure in the knowledge

that it is the will of the people who cast their votes.

[Enthusiast]

305. Naturyl again,

"And you have every right to feel that way, but it doesn't make what I said "bullshit." The image of Democrats is damaged by this stuff, rightly or wrongly. This is just an indisputable fact we can see in evidence. Our opponents get a hold of this stuff and have a field day with it."

The image of the Democrats? The image of the Democrats doesn't mean shit if the results of an election are falsified! Or have you been out of the country for the last 7 years? Yeah, the corporate media has tried to paint the Democrats concerned about fair elections as being "sore losers". Dude, just crawl back in your hole with Rove.

[Naturyl]

327. Crawl back in my hole with Rove? No thanks.

Rove could not be happier when you guys start with this stuff.

[dmallind]

316. No he's right - here's why

The recount will demonstrate that the reported totals were accurate.

The tinfoil brogade will still make noise and not believe it.

Thus any legitimate challenge to any true Diebold chicanery oh say in Novemebr will be "there they go again - how many times do we have to prove the count is accurate?" and soundly dismissed.

If you're going to challenge these things - challenge when it matters and challenge when you are DAMN sure there's a problem - when it didn't match exit polls at all, can't be explained by soft support and historically volatile bounces combined with a high turnout of women and older voters sympathetic to the surprise winner.

If we shoot our wad challenging accurate results, how does that help the credibility of those who would prefer to complain when there really is a problem?

[Naturyl]

328. Yeah, exactly. Good point. (nt)

[Binka]

371. Thanks Madame Clio. And You Know This How?

You have been all over the board with your RW talking points and your braggadocios chest puffing about your wonderful job etc etc, you are a pompous insufferable Punk. I did enjoy your self portrait in your avatar though.

Welcome to ignore.

[Pastiche423]

116. How?

[juno jones]

215. Like it might muss our hair?

Smear our lipstick? Make us somehow even more goache than we were before in the eyes of the MSM? Or Dennis less nutty... Ufo's, god forbid.

Why is it that some people are willing to trust their votes to this secret 'proprietary' wooga-wooga code run by cronies of the corrupt system? If I am going to bother to vote I want to know that it actually counts for something.

PS the guy mentioned upthread, the one who got a small number of votes, seems to be funded by people within ron paul's camp. Paul lost a huge percentage of his projected votes as well, in a state where he was expected to do well. http://grannywarrior.chipin.com/recount

[MadHound]

251. The only damage it does to anybody's image

Is to A: Diebold machines B: The NH election process and election officials or if everything come out the same way a second time around, C: Possible Dennis Kucinich. Since Dennis really has nothing to lose, he has, once again done the right thing.

Shame that this party can't get behind the one candidate who has been doing the right thing for a long time.

Your protest over image damage is a weak one. Votes are recounted all the time, especially on a state and local level and nobody's image is damaged. It is a legal and acceptable action to take, and nobody really gets bent out of shape about it. About the worst blowback from a recount is the extra money spent, and despite a bit of grumbling most people would rather spend a bit extra and be sure about the matter.

[dmallind]

317. generally candidates challenge results when they come in a close second

It's a bit of a stretch for Dennis to claim he was robbed surely? You are kidding yourself if you think this won't reflect on Democrats as a whole and won't be used to discredit genuine claims of real vote hacking.

[rudy23]

343. He never claimed that. Read his words--he STRESSED that he didn't expect it to help him

Read his statement on the subject, it's very eloquent and well-reasoned.

[dmallind]

357. I know he never claimed it - which is why this will be seen not as a "genuine"

challenge but will reflect on all Democrats as not trusting any result, and will if proven unmerited discredit any futuire challenges that might be necessary and actually make a difference.

Something about boys and wolves is the general point here.

[MadHound]

361. Sorry, but your whole point about recounts damaging the Dem's image is a false one

Do you know how many recounts there were in the '06 election? Hmmm? Five, and that is in an off year. These five recounts were instigated by Dems, 'Pugs and the officials themselves. Didn't know about that did you? Did it reflect badly on anyone? No, it didn't.

Recounts are common occurrences, they happen each and in virtually each and every major, and some minor, elections. They keep the voting process transparent and honest, and frankly they are needed now more than ever.

Oh, and Dennis never claimed he was robbed, go read his statement on this matter. He is, rightly so, wanting to make sure that things were done right in the face of results that are unusual to say the least. This is the right and proper thing for the Dems to do, and once again, Dennis is doing the right thing.

So as you see, your reasons for opposing this simply don't hold up. So why else don't you want a NH recount? Afraid of what it might turn up?

[loudsue]

385. Being in love with "image" is narcissism. n/t

[rudy23]

411. Well said! I think you hit on a key point! nt

[Yuugal]

161. "Countless damage" sums up machine voting nicely

The democracy comes first. I for one will sleep alot easier if they recount say 20% of the machine counted districts and see if the paper matches the memory card. If the DNC had any brains, they would pay for recounts in every primary as a test to the system and have all candidates come out for the idea. It would show we are the party of "every vote counts" and the reps couldn't bitch it was being done for partisan reasons.

Later in the year when they cheat like hell we would have alot more grounds to dispute the almighty machines. If a few recounts prove the machines are wonderful then we at least put the issue to rest.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. why is transparency so scary to some?

[Kurovski]

207. Now THAT's what I call a "tin-foil" post.

:thumbsup:

But "endless damage" would have been the proper choice.

[AikidoSoul]

270. Nonsense

Veracity no matter what will do us ALL some good.

[HeraldSquare212]

21. It's good - vigilance is the watchword

Let everyone know people are watching.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. Yes! I also heard that an obscure GOP candidate will be asking for a recount there too.

This should be interesting! :)

[Laurab]

41. That would make it even better

and Dennis wouldn't have to shoulder it on his own. I admire him greatly for doing this.

[annabanana]

A guy named Albert Howard, from Ann Arbor

Albert Howard, would-be presidential contender from Ann Arbor, said today he has discussed a recount of the Republican vote in Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire with the secretary of state’s office, and plans to fly to New Hampshire by the end of the day Friday to pay the required fee and start the recount.

Howard, one of 42 so-called minor candidates in the primary, received 44 votes in the primary, according to the official tally. But at one point during the night’s vote counting, Howard said his tally was over 170 votes, making him wonder what happened.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080110/NEWS06/80110061

[stillcool]

67. Ron Paul supporters..

are grumbling too.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

118. In one district, it was recorded that there were no votes for Paul. A family who voted for him

went to the district to complain that they did. It seems that 31 votes that were supposed to go to Paul didn't. The people at the district said, oops, we made a mistake. I wonder how many of those mistakes were made for everyone statewide.

[stillcool]

144. and here's the other dude...

that has asked for a recount..

Ann Arbor man plans recount of N.H. Republican primary

January 10, 2008

BY TINA LAM

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Albert Howard, would-be presidential contender from Ann Arbor, said today he has discussed a recount of the Republican vote in Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire with the secretary of state’s office, and plans to fly to New Hampshire by the end of the day Friday to pay the required fee and start the recount.

Howard, one of 42 so-called minor candidates in the primary, received 44 votes in the primary, according to the official tally. But at one point during the night’s vote counting, Howard said his tally was over 170 votes, making him wonder what happened.


Howard said today that he discussed his recount request with William Gardner, the secretary of state. Howard must pay a $2,000 fee to start the recount process, but the costs could be much higher, he said. He must pay all the associated costs, which includes police who would go with the ballot counters to each county. “I’ve got backers who will pay the costs,” Howard said.

Gardner was not immediately available today. A secretary said Howard must pay the fee and make his formal request tomorrow by 5 p.m. to trigger the recount. The recount would be of every candidate on the Republican ballot, not just the votes cast for Howard, she said.

Howard, a chauffeur for Checker Sedan and father of eight, paid $1,000 to be on the New Hampshire ballot as a Republican presidential candidate. He is not on the ballot in any other states, most of which, like Michigan, require petitions signed by several thousand voters to get a candidate’s name on the ballot.

[stillcool]

176. Check it out....

http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/news/


BREAKING!! Urgent I just Talked to Albert RE:Recount!!!!

It could cost as much as $12,000 to do the full recount, and he is flying daily paulto NH tonight and the recount is on. He also said to please pray for his safety in this quest.
He wanted everyone to understand how "BIG" this is!!!! Alex Jones is preparing a nationwide news conferance right now to expose the entire thing! He also said.....God Bless all of us, and any support would be appreciated. Call now and talk to him!!!
I got chills!!
He asked for this to be posted everywhere....PEOPLE THIS IS HUGE....we get a RE_COUNT without exposing RP to anything!!!!!
January 10, 2008 Permalink
Message from Ron: Onward!

[snot]

256. hold it

I'm all for a recount -- given the lack of transparency etc., there's no reasonable stance to take except that the burden to PROVE any election was NOT fraudulent should be on those actually in control of it -- but Alex Jones?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

192. EVERYONE PLEASE READ THE ABOVE POST.. PLEASE!

[polichick]

26. “unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots”

Where have we heard THAT before???

[Junkdrawer]

27. Can we ask "Chain of Custody" questions now? And how much delay will there be?

:shrug:

[snot]

YESS, PLEEEZ! Will "recount" mean more here than it did in Ohio??? nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. I've been reading the issue about how none of the polls, before and after the fact

....correspond to the results of the election? Very odd indeed. The polling companies don't understand it themselves, that all could be "wrong" not only before, but after the election. I think Newsweek has an article about it?

[rjones2818]

255. More interesting, at least to me

is that the exit polls were pretty spot on for all the Dems except for Obama and Hillary.

[OzarkDem]

29. Dennis, pls get back to your re-election campaign

OH-10 needs you. :)

[doublethink]

31. ..........

:kick:

[Cooley Hurd]

32. Great! A recount would settle the question, once and for all.

I tend to believe things were likely on the up-and-up in regards to the NH primary, however the polling vs vote discrepancies should be fully addressed, and a recount will facilitate this.:thumbsup:

[DainBramaged]

373. No it won't, the crybabies will still be bitching

[Cooley Hurd]

410. What crybabies? You mean people like Andy Stephenson?

If Andy were alive today, he'd be IN NH demanding transparency in the voting process.

Why doesn't anyone "get" what's happening here? IF the machines were monkeyed with, it should be INVESTIGATED. If not, you can count on having another scuzzy repug in the WH next January.

[DainBramaged]

413. What is happening, SOME polls were wrong and NOT to some people's liking??

Feed the Repuke pool of disinformation, we'll just stand by and watch.

Oh one more thing, if 50 votes are wrong, the crybabies will still yell "I told you so".


This is getting stupid. We have THREE viable qualified candidates, and some of you don't want to accept that.

What bullshit.

Happy fucking weekend. Watch out for the black helicopters.

[Name removed]

415. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loudsue]

386. No. We need to recount EVERY state that has secret proprietary programming.

And recount and recount and recount until the elections officials figure it's less trouble to use paper ballots, hand counted, the first time, than it is to re-do every election.

[Skinner]

34. In case anyone is wondering: This thread can stay.

Since obviously, this is legitimate news.

Not sure if we are going to change our earlier decision to move discussions of this issue to the Election Reform forum. The admins need to discuss it before any decisions are made.

Skinner
DU Admin

[HCE SuiGeneris]

40. Thank you. Pretty important stuff, whether one is for or against validating the counts.

[EFerrari]

43. Thanks, Skinner. Whatever works. n/t

[KoKo]

60. Thanks, Skinner...I try to think how hard it is for you to deal with this...and

while I don't always agree with your choices...when I think about it...in the end I see why you have to cordon off some stuff when it becomes so heated and disruptive that it drives others off the Board.

As I said...some stuff I disagree with you...but you've been fair enough about this...for even us folks who get pissed...

Not an easy job...being SOLOMON! Anyway...thanks for the little time on this...:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

71. Cat herding is sooo much fun.

:silly:

[KoKo]

112. Yeah...but as someone "owned by cats" ...it's "fairness" that the cats want from the "Herder!"

and believe me...I've trained some MEAN CATS..... :D

[Jacobin]

103. when?

http://www.wickedsunshine.com/WagePeace/Election2004/Images/AwJeez,NotThisShitAgain!.jpg

[KoKo]

126. HUH? You aren't talking that Votes weren't STOLEN in the Past Elections ...Are You?

Otherwise your pix is giving me that same HEADACHE! ayyyyyyy

[chimpymustgo]

164. Thanks, Skinner. My head was exploding earlier, and I'm sorry for that. We're all on the same team.

Whatever the outcome - it's important that we can see it and trust it.

Go Dems!

Go Democracy!

[Swamp Rat]

206. Thank you n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

253. The integrity of our election process is and should always be

considered legitimate news.

[cloudythescribbler]

276. I STRONGLY urge DUers to advocate a recission of the TERRIBLE precedent of this decision

I didn't like the way that the moderator(s) had come to the conclusion that NONE of the arguments about the final and especially the exit polls diverging from the reported results were valid; neither the chart showing the divergence WIDEST where certain technologies were employed, and the report by Chris Matthews were swept aside without so much as a specific refutation of their validity.

I totally reject the argument, raised by some on DU and by Josh Marshall, that this is simply a case of assuming that whenever 'your guy' loses, it is THEREFORE fraud. There is substantial evidence warranting at the least a healthy skepticism.

I know that many consider it a 'tin-foil' hat exercise and the RWers like to make fun of DU for that sort of thing, but what this reflects in my arrogant opinion (IMAO) is simply the intimidation of progressives from raising valid issues and valid arguments, and an appeal to a craving for respectability.

Also, the process leaves much to be desired. Many dozens of commentors at DU have expressed sympathy, or (as in my own case) open-mindedness towards these concerns (similarly pooh poohed in Ohio 2004 and Ohio 2005), a willingness to confront the evidence and not merely sneer at people for raising the issue.

To date I have not seen ANYONE come up with a strongly credible explanation for some of the evidence regarding the exit polls alluded to above. Zogby, the leading pollster, asked to explain it said he didn't know. These concerns should all point to the use of Optical Scanners ONLY and never depend on a vote without effective independent verifiability.

[fascisthunter]

322. Thank You, Skinner

I believe people's concerns about the verifiability is very important and should not be clouded by the idea that most people have an agenda. Many including myself, have doubts regarding the NH primary. This will put it to rest, I think.

[EFerrari]

36. Dennis always does the right thing.

I love that about him. Even if it's a pain in the @ss, he does it anyway.

lol

[jgraz]

I seriously want to have Dennis' baby

I love that guy.

[lovuian]

294. I'll have his second baby

Love him too

[Elspeth]

42. Crap. We'll find out Mitt Romney actually won.

:)

[annabanana]

44. Don't care. . . It's so early, this is the BEST time to do this...n/t

[Laurab]

59. I doubt that - McCain's results were predicted.

Unlike some of the other results. Aside from Obama's lead that dissapated overnight, there is the fact that Edwards and Richardson stayed at 17% and 5% all night. In fact, although I like Obama, I don't care if Hillary did even better - at least I could feel like the vote could be trusted.

[rudy23]

45. Thank you Dennis! The TRUTH is a better way to shut me up than Rovian catchphrases.

If the truth is within reach of the process, why not use THAT to shut people like me up, instead of recycled Repuke logic from '00, '02, '04, and '06?

[ORDagnabbit]

48. I am so relieved I've been fighting the last couple of days for this

and cant tell you how incredibly happy I am for all of us.

a transparent and verifiable election process is needed so as to create trust in our government.


thanks to everyone who was brave enough to stand and ask questions!!!

[rudy23]

62. Yes, thanks to the brave people who only wanted to see the process worked to full transparency

Democracy wins
Truth wins
This thread is refreshingly chock full of REASON! This makes my day!

[chimpymustgo]

157. This is a great thread. We're all in favor of the same thing: transparent verified voting.

Yay!

:dem:

[DainBramaged]

378. A great thread is one that vilifies Repukes, exposes corruption, finds World peace, cures cancer

This will end up to be just another watershed moment for the Democratic party to eat it's own young.

[lurky]

50. If people really want to put this issue to rest, they should support a recount.

If the recount goes well, then the issue goes away and they won't have to listen to stolen election talk for the next 100 years.

Unless they're worried about what they'll find...
:evilgrin:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

54. Absolutely. The pigheadedness against checking the machine's validity baffles me.

[Karenina]

76. Dump the fucking machines.

[NikolaC]

380. Plain and Simple

Well stated. Agreed, those machines need to go. There have been too many dubious results in very important elections which involve those machines. Who in their right mind can believe that leaving the counting of votes to a private company is sane, tamper free and in the best interests of the voter? No matter what the outcome, it does not hurt to check the results in NH. As usual, Way To Go Dennis!

[lurky]

95. Agreed. And it's not like there are a bunch of delegates at stake.

Whatever happens, BO and HRC end up with 9 each. And a little daylight would go a long way towards easing tension, given the polling weirdness.

Why people would oppose a recount is a mystery to me. It creates the impression of wanting to hide something, fair or not. And it provides precedent for republicans, so the next time they try something sleazy like Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004 (and they will, trust me), they can claim a double standard because HRC or whoever had strange exit polls and they didn't have to be audited.

[IndyOp]

79. The issue doesn't go away -- we should always, always have the right to

challenge any election. That is our responsibility.

:hi:

[lurky]

140. Yes!

:hi:

[OnTheOtherHand]

89. what? are you joking?

If the recount goes well, then the issue goes away -- until the next election. And since this is primary season....

I'm just saying.

[EFerrari]

132. That's one outcome but not the only one.

What's more important is to have the issue under discussion, to train people to think about it in a productive way.

[OnTheOtherHand]

198. look, I will cross my fingers

but I have yet to see a hyped accusation of vote miscount that seemed to foster productive thinking.

Did I just see a post about Alex Jones doing a press conference? Jeepers.

I'm not trying to undermine you here. If it's possible to make a silk purse out of this stuff, I'm all for it.

[lurky]

135. If every election has 10 point discrepancies,

then that's fine with me. Whoever our nominee is, I don't want them to be trailed by insinuations of election fraud. Even today, I hear republicans try to discredit JFK by citing irregularities in Chicago in 1960. Do you really want that hanging over our head? Seriously?

[OnTheOtherHand]

202. but I don't see ANY discrepancy

If you match apples to apples, the hand-count and op-scan results are similar to within a fraction of a point. I'm not afraid to have that hanging over my head at all.

Well, try it your way.

[jbnow]

296. I don't know what you mean

"hand-count and op-scan results are similar to within a fraction of a point"

But they aren't
http://checkthevotes.com/index.php?party=DEMOCRATS
For the Dems you can see Obama won by 4% in hand count but lost by 4% in machine counts.

Some say it's the difference in area, that maybe rural voters who usually have hand counts just liked Obama better. That's unusual but this site has also broken down hand versus machine by town size and it seems machines just don't like Obama, big swings. Clinton beat him in small town machine votes by 2% and lost in hand count votes by 6%. In medium towns she beat him by 6% on machines and lost by 4% in hand counts.

There was a small number of hand counted votes in large towns and Obama did get a lower percentage. It is too small a sample (2%), probably 1 town, but it might turn out that a lot more urban voters did like Clinton a lot more.

The results were fine with me, a race hones a nominee.
But the discrepancies are not fine with me.
November is coming!

If you have other stats let me know.

[OnTheOtherHand]

310. here are two sets of stats

First, some percentages -- which I think are misleading, but sort of dramatize the problem with the "Clinton got extra votes on op-scan" hypothesis. These figures are based on counting method this year, so if a few places switched methods between 2004 and 2008, they are categorized as to 2008.

          hand count  op scan
Clinton     34.1%      40.5%
Obama       40.0%      36.3%
margin      -5.9%       4.2%     difference: -10.1%


          hand count  op scan
Kerry       32.4%      39.6%
Dean        34.5%      24.8%
margin      -2.1%      14.7%     difference: -16.8%

So, Dean was robbed on optical scanners and actually won New Hampshire? Probably not, because that year (unlike this year) the result was close to the pre-election polls. Moreover, there is no reason to expect hand count and op scan jurisdictions to be politically similar -- in fact, I haven't seen a knowledgeable political observer who claims that they are. So the comparison is fundamentally bizarre -- sort of like looking at election results in Georgia and Hawaii to compare the political impact of peaches and pineapples.

OK, now, the cognoscenti can argue about model specifications until doomsday, but let me just show you some Ordinary Least Squares results using Kerry's margin over Dean in 2004 to predict Clinton's margin over Obama in 2008. I chose OLS instead of something weighted by number of votes so that the cities have more chance to 'stand out' if their results are actually strange. But I removed places with fewer than 100 votes, because those data are pretty noisy.

lm(formula = clinton_margin ~ kerry_p_margin + opscan, data = nh, 
    subset = (tvote08pri > 99))

Coefficients:
                Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)    -0.044853   0.009939  -4.513 1.05e-05 ***
kerry_p_margin  0.632487   0.055425  11.411  < 2e-16 ***
opscan         -0.004142   0.015981  -0.259    0.796    

Residual standard error: 0.1039 on 218 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.4331,	Adjusted R-squared: 0.4279 
F-statistic: 83.27 on 2 and 218 DF,  p-value: < 2.2e-16 

That -0.004142 says that controlling for Kerry's margin, Clinton actually did very slightly worse on optical scanners. But the Pr value at the right says that this result is very much statistically insignificant. I can make that number slightly positive or slightly negative by changing the size cutoff, but I haven't seen a statistically significant positive result.

I've seen a description of a high-tech matching analysis that came to the same conclusion in an arguably more robust way: to the extent that it is possible to compare similar hand-count and op-scan places, Clinton didn't perform appreciably better in the op-scan places.

[jbnow]

429. Thanks. I understand the first set

I don't understand Ordinary Least Squares. It's been a long time since college statistics...but I appreciate you making that effort.

I did see post the difference in ways of voting in similar sized towns but size isn't the only factor of places being similar.

It does make me feel better that you don't find it a statistical aberration. You noted the difference in the pre-election polls and that did throw me with no huge intervening event

Then I was concerned by Matthew blabbing about the raw exit poll data

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22598268/
Jennifer, I want to start with you and try—I‘m wide open on this. I have no pre-conception. Like everyone else, I was stunned at 5:30ish last night. I was passed a piece of paper just for guidance that told me that Barack Obama was going to win a significant victory. This was based upon the polling of people going—sorry, coming out of the booth, having voted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22598272/
MATTHEWS: The exit polling showed, I got to tell you, I got it late in the evening yesterday that showed Hillary behind. And they were telling us it was going to get to be a bigger behind. She was going to fall further behind, so explain that...

But I know there are debates about raw data and I know odd things simply happen. If the math doesn't trouble you I don't know enough about math to say otherwise.

I wish...we just had a common and shared simple clean voting system.

Thanks

[Ignis]

359. What, and give up our faith-based voting system?! Never!

:rofl:

[loudsue]

388. I disagree: THIS isn't the only recount that needs to happen. It is only one.

This issue will settle NOTHING about secretly programmed voting machines, and the fact that corporations have taken over our elections process. It has to stop, even if we have to recount every state in the union twice.

This issue WILL NOT, and SHOULD NOT go away, until ALL of our elections are done properly, transparently, and verifiably.

[LWolf]

61. K & R n/t

[Bluebear]

65. Grand. We will find out nothing wrong happened, which will legitimize Bush '00 & '04

"See? See? There was a recount and nothing changed. I guess Ohio '04 was legitimate too, you whiners!!1111"

[annabanana]

69. It will set precedence for transparency. Please read the thread.. . n/t

[Occam Bandage]

70. Bingo.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

77. N53?

[EFerrari]

72. That would be pretty hard. 00 was already conceded

by the media consortium and people have gone to jail for 04.

They'll spin anyway. We might as well try for what we need.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

75. Bit premature for that isn't it?

Should vote recounts be "off the table" always?

[Bluebear]

86. No they should not be off the table, but no candidate has hinted that anything amiss happened.

This has been seemingly driven by the Obama fans who just cannot face that he lost by a few percentage points, and Kucinich, who pledged his votes to Obama in Iowa, so I don't know what this is gaining.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

177. Simply put. This a quality assurance maneuver to see if

the discrepancies between the pre-vote polls and post-vote tallies can be attributed to machines that have already been shown to be faulty and banned in other states. I do not understand the reluctance for such an action.

[weeve]

282. Wrong.

This Edwards supporter stands to gain nothing in the recount ... except a little thing like PROGRESS on the road to transparent elections !

I'm proud of you, Mr. Kucinich !

[Enthusiast]

308. Bluebear said:

"This has been seemingly driven by the Obama fans who just cannot face that he lost by a few percentage points, and Kucinich, who pledged his votes to Obama in Iowa, so I don't know what this is gaining."

Bullshit! This is not driven by Obama fans. Knowing the truth will be gain enough. I suspect Obama actually won by more than a few percentage points. Why are you in favor of election fraud?

[JackRiddler]

375. This is so obviously not an Obama-fan phenomenon...

People who pick a candidate because he's Dr. Feelgood with the Hope and Change generally don't go for downers like election fraud. This is obviously being driven by people who have been paying attention to two related phenomena since 2000: stolen elections and mobsters in government.

[Maven]

108. Precisely.

I love Dennis but I don't know why this one primary is the target of calls for a recount.

If we're really interested in election integrity and not partisanship, we should call for a hand count in every state.

[weeve]

284. In my opinion ...

... we should recount EVERY election. That is if we care to have fair elections that we can trust, and retain our Democracy !

[NikolaC]

384. Sure

Why not recount every state that uses those machines to insure electoral integrity? Or just simply get rid of the machines altogether.

[rucky]

261. And not recounting will allow '00 and '04 to repeat themselves. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

291. Does the phrase "nothing to lose" ring a bell?

[Marr]

365. Worry about potential right-wing talking points if you like.

I'd prefer to act rather than worry about how the right-wing might REact.

[Occam Bandage]

68. Of course. Dude's a grandstander.

[annabanana]

73. uh huh, sure, Kucinich is a grandstander... yup, that's the ticket....

:sarcasm:

[Occam Bandage]

85. He is.

[Zorra]

228. Yeah, grandstander...you mean like when he smacked Diebold down?

Or was it when he led the House in opposing the invasion of Iraq?

Of course, you may be in favor of the war, and electronic voting, so you might consider Dennis a nuisance and a grandstander.

But if Dennis is a grandstander, I personally wish we had a few hundred more Congresspersons just like him.

Democrats might finally get something that is genuinely productive done, instead of continually appeasing republicans.

December 9, 2003
Madison Capital Times (Wisconsin)
Go-Along Media Ignoring Kucinich
by John Nichols
snip---
Typically, Kucinich was ahead of the curve on an important issue. In November,
he seized on concerns about the reliability of electronic voting machines
produced by Diebold Inc., one of the nation's largest voting equipment
manufacturers. Those concerns were stirred by the revelation that Diebold
employees had expressed concerns in e-mails about the security of machines
produced by the company.
Diebold sought to shut down any debate about its machines by threatening legal
actions against operators of Web sites that were publishing or linking to
corporate documents that detailed flaws in Diebold equipment and
irregularities in the certifying of the company's systems for elections.
When he learned of the legal threats, Kucinich took on the politically potent
corporation. The Ohio congressman asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim
Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls, and the ranking Democrat on that committee,
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, to investigate whether the company's actions
were potential abuses of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He also posted
the controversial documents on his congressional Web site.
Diebold quickly backed down. And Kucinich used the development to declare, "In
a democracy where half the people don't vote and where the last presidential
election was decided by the Supreme Court, we cannot tolerate flawed voting
equipment or intimidation of those who point out the flaws. Diebold backing
down from its intimidation campaign is a positive step. An open and honest
examination of the flaws in electronic voting will lead us to only one
possible conclusion: electronic voting machines are dangerous to democracy
because there is no way of ensuring their accuracy. We have to have a
voter-verified paper trail for every election so that any errors and
irregularities caused by the voting machines can be recovered."
All in all, this makes for a meaty story. A presidential candidate takes on a
major corporation and wins in a fight over an issue that is fundamental to the
functioning of our democracy.
So were there headlines about Kucinich's fight with Diebold? No. Television
news reports? No. Lengthy discussions on public radio or commercial talk
radio? No.

http://www.oilempire.us/kucinich.html

[EFerrari]

81. Give me a grandstander who wants to impeach and bring our troops home

over a collaborator ANY DAY.

[Occam Bandage]

82. Sure. Nothing will get done, but you'll feel good as you fight the good fight.

[EFerrari]

92. I have a match here for your straw man.

[Occam Bandage]

105. Erroneous use of term "straw man," minus five yards.

[EFerrari]

109. The ego argument is a strawman. For self congratulatory baloney,

you're out.

[Occam Bandage]

128. Ad hominem, perhaps.

It was abusive, but not a strawman. I never attempted a refutation of an distorted version of your case. Rather, I:

1. Presented what I believe a likely result of your desire would be,
and
2. Presented an unflattering suggestion as to the motivations behind your desire.

[Enthusiast]

309. Occam Badage said:

"It was abusive, but not a strawman. I never attempted a refutation of an distorted version of your case. Rather, I:

1. Presented what I believe a likely result of your desire would be,
and
2. Presented an unflattering suggestion as to the motivations behind your desire."

It doesn't matter what you presented, your position is completely wrong.

[Maven]

113. I wish Dennis would grandstand more often

I just think he's taking the wrong approach here.

[StarryNite]

83. You go Dennis!

You are our voice!:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[OneGrassRoot]

88. Way to go, Dennis! n/t

[Junkdrawer]

90. In tomorrow's New Hampshire's want ads:

Wanted:

Temp workers to recreate hacked Op Scan ballots. No Experience Necessary. Discretion a must.

Please call: John Silvestro at LHS Associates.

[LakeSamish706]

91. I hope that one day soon States will get rid of these moron touch screens with...

no paper trail. We know that they are seriously flawed and can be hacked at will by a very basic software programmer, and therefore have no legal basis in our electoral system. These things have to go from every State in order to get us back to trust in every vote counting.

[Bluebear]

93. My precinct, which went for Clinton, had no "touch screen"

[Junkdrawer]

94. They were Diebold Op Scan readers. n/t

[EFerrari]

100. In this case, it wasn't touch screens. It was op scan systems.

But, the scanners are insecure. They just don't have as good a press agent.

[KoKo]

143. Yep...the OptiScans look innocent but Vote Tallies are sent to Central Tabulators...

at "Headquarters" often in charge of "questionable DINO's" and even the "Optiscan" (so innocent looking as a "counter" in the voting district...might be hackable with a savvy "pocket device"...and then moved on to "Central Tablulator" and when no one is looking.....BINGO...vote is tampered with.

Given my experience volunteering...I gotta tell you in the heat of campaigns...there's not folks WATCHING OUT for VOTING...like you might think there would be. So much is dependent on VOLUNTEERS who can't be on top of everything...voting nuances and all that...and there's NO TIME...and stretched thin...when there's time.

It's ALL our FAULTS and taking advantage of many Volunteers who are Computer Whizzes...but then many of us aren't and so we shouldn't blame the volunteers trying to catch up.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

104. New Hampshire doesn't use touch screen voting machines.

They use optical scanners with paper ballots. The count can be hacked, but they still have paper ballots that can be counted manually.

[KoKo]

181. That's why a "simple hand count" would disprove corruption...worth doing...no?

:shrug:

[Jacobin]

96. Maybe he saw aliens stealing the ballots?

This should help him a lot..........not

[upi402]

114. watch much TV news?

i betcha do


yummy huh?

[Jacobin]

280. I have a question

Who directed the ballot shenanigans? Hillary's group? Or was it McCain's sidekick who also gave the edge to Hillary, planning that she would be easier to beat in the general? Or did Richardson just get tired and wanna go home, so he gave himself fewer.

I love all your theories, but I'm needing some of what you are smoking to divine the end result someone was trying to get at.

[Individualist]

133. Cheap shot,

unfounded and sounding like something straight from the DLC's talking points handbook. :puke:

[Jacobin]

277. I thought he saw a UFO

Am I remembering this wrong?

[Individualist]

345. Do you not understand the difference

between seeing aliens as opposed to seeing UFO's. :eyes:

[MelissaB]

98. From Dennis:

...snip


“Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days…It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery – not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.”

Bolding mine!

[Bluebear]

102. "Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced" - where?

Seriously.

[Jacobin]

106. On DU?

[ORDagnabbit]

107. open your eyes and look around this site and you'll see a bunch

transparent and verifiable elections for all.

[Bluebear]

119. Oh, OK, yes, my eyes have been closed, thank you for showing me the way

;)

[ORDagnabbit]

125. sorry wasnt meaning to sound mean....its just theres been so much information flying the last couple

of days.

[Bluebear]

129. Well I *live* in New Hampshire, I have heard nothing here as to serious allegations.

But carry on.

[foo_bar]

159. the fact that he needed to cite "rumors" is telling

But if he's paying for it, more power to him. If I were a Hillary supporter I'd be peeved at the negative press, but the perceived outcome won't change unless they find 7,500 missing Obama votes (which is about as likely as a visit from extraterrestrials; has a recount ever found a 2% discrepancy, much less on optical scanners?), so for all we know this will improve Clinton's standing in the end.

[Kurovski]

245. If you were a Hillary supporter you'd be "peeved" all the time.

Which leads me to ask, are you SURE you're not a Hillary supporter? :shrug:

[foo_bar]

249. I'll refrain from a reciprocal ad hominem

If you have anything substantive to add, I'll be happy to respond in kind.

[Kurovski]

254. It's a joke, oh mighty definer-of-all. (this here to the left is ad hominem.)

But feel free to reply in kind with a joke.

Or are you just too peeved for a joke? :shrug: In that case we can both roll-over, turn out the lights and go to sleep.

[foo_bar]

258. I'll leave that distinction to the moderators

I'm not a big fan of "jokes" that rely on stereotypes, such as "If you were a Hillary supporter you'd be "peeved" all the time", but I understand there's an entire AM radio industry based on such.

[Kurovski]

262. You made a joke!

And a pretty good one. :D

Carry on, foo_bar.

You big snitch. (that there to the left is an ad hominem.)

[foo_bar]

268. it's always nice to be appreciated.

One of the wise men of Chelm came to the rabbi with a question.

"Why is it," he asked, "that a slice of bread with butter on it always falls with the buttered side down?"

"Is that so?" said the rabbi. "Let's see if it's true." The rabbi buttered a piece of bread, and let it fall. This time the buttered side was facing up. "Now, what about that?" asked the rabbi.

"But, Rabbi," came the reply. "You obviously buttered the wrong side!"

http://books.google.com/books?id=EEi5pDcUE4MC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&source=web&ots=VHlHfhSlKe&sig=cvx9PTw0xArgbWWgrlSLViA5Ro8#PPA23,M1

[Kurovski]

272. Hmm.

Kinda like a Hillary supporter being peeved at the negative press, when for all we know this will improve Clinton's standing in the end, buttered side up.

[foo_bar]

274. it's a good metaphor for "moving the goalposts" in a losing debate

Kinda like a Hillary supporter being peeved at the negative press, when for all we know this will improve Clinton's standing in the end, buttered side up.

Kind of a non sequitur beyond "buttered side up", since there's no apparent contradiction between Hillary supporters resenting a recount, yet their candidate being ultimately vindicated by a http://www.invisibleida.com">confirmatory result.

I want Obama to win and win handily, but not enough to scapegoat Clinton supporters or put faith in new urban legends every time the old ones didn't land on the "correct" side.

[Kurovski]

285. "Buttered side up" is the only part I can sell on AM radio.

[The Doctor.]

422. The suggestion you're a "Hillary Supporter" is an ad-hominem attack?

Yeah, you've definitely got issues. That's all I wanted to know.

Bye.

[foo_bar]

435. I'm sorry to have been the first to identify your snowballing deceit (on a different thread)

But you're in a bit of a sticky wicket if it's going to be "Dr_eldritch" and Dr. Mark Lindeman, Prof. of Political Science at Bard College, who writes:

You would do well to stop haranguing foo and start paying closer attention. I don't expect you to believe this, but maybe eventually you will.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x489447#492836

edit for obligatory Wiki-lecture:

The suggestion you're a "Hillary Supporter" is an ad-hominem attack?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
<...>
Guilt by association

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Yeah, you've definitely got issues.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_abusive

[lumberjack_jeff]

292. Depending on your definition of "serious and credible". Tweety, for one. n/t

[SOS]

347. The hand vs. machine question

was raised by Keith Olbermann during a segment with Craig Crawford.
Crawford ignored the point.

[KoKo]

101. What Kucinich is Proposting seems VERY FAIR...and shouldn't get Hackles of anyone up?

Because McMedia has harped on "HOW COULD OUR POLLS BE SOOOO WRONG!" ...and questions from "Voting Rights Activists across the Spectrum" who have "Questions." (And, YES...I understand..we ALL HATE BEV HARRIS...but there were OTHER "Voting Rights Activist" groups who ALSO HAD QUESTIONS!

Let's get it done in a small state like NH before it "BLOWS UP" like Kooch is cautioning about. WHY NOT?

If we WAIT...no one will even bother...:shrug:

[LakeSamish706]

130. And lets do it early in a state like NH so we can hopefully get it right before November. n/t

[upi402]

111. Heckyeah!!!

Ya mean acoubtability? WTF?
What's that?

There were so many that weren't comitted to a candidate that it was really up in the air.

[MzNov]

122. Yes!

At least count the 20% that they don't even touch, with machine or human hand!!!

www.bradblog.com

[BradBlog]

288. Bad news for ya...

It's actually 80% that is not counted by anyone (only by machine).

20% are counted by hand.

(Both numbers appx. but you get the idea)

Any wonder I been running around w/ my hair on fire about this?

[MzNov]

396. Good lord!! I am dyslexic.

Or brain fogged! Thought those were the nos. from your interview on Malloy the other night.

But thanks.

and ferchrissake, your's hair's on fire.

Keep up the good work, PLEASE !!!

Thanks.

Ms.N.

[Hutzpa]

123. There is HOPE after all

THANK YOU DENNIS!!!


:yourock: :yourock: :headbang:

[mondo joe]

127. Good for him if he can formally get it done.

I don't believe Hillary didn't win fair and square. But nothing wrong with a recount.

[EFerrari]

137. In a way, if it all turns out fine, her win will just be clearer.

It's a win-win situation.

[mondo joe]

160. My belief in Clinton's NH victory and my belief in transparent, reliable elections

are in no conflict whatsoever. I don't even believe it's necessary for her win to be "clearer" though I know there are some on DU who do feel that way.

Greater accuracy and reliability are always good things. :-)

[RiverStone]

174. Thank you, thank you, thank you....

For not saying this is about sour grapes!

Diebold should not count anybodies vote - period. Regardless of party affiliation or who won in NH; we are owed transparent and verifiable elections. Thats the real issue here, not that Hillary had a narrow win. Diebold counted 81% of NH's votes!

If Diebold is shit canned - WE ALL WIN! :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

136. Geaux Dennis!!

:kick:

[Naturyl]

147. Aw, I clicked this post just for the giant blue letters

But they weren't there... I'm crestfallen now. :)

[Swamp Rat]

151. I was in a rush to get to another thread, but wanted to bump this one... here ya go:

GEAUX KUCINICH!!!

[Naturyl]

166. Thanks, that's more like it.

:)

[KoKo]

183. Thanks Swampie...Needed to SEE THAT!!!

:thumbsup:

[Lena inRI]

195. Hoooooooraaaaaaaaaay, DENNIS. . .the people's GADFLY. . .

BUG THE HELL OUT OF 'EM, DENNIS!

DEMAND DENNIS IN DENVER !

:kick: :loveya: :kick: :loveya: :kick:

[Kurovski]

273. !

:loveya:

[helderheid]

138. And here I go to donate to him. Thank you, Dennis!

[cyberpj]

148. He just got some cash from me as well. nt

[Junkdrawer]

163. Just gave him $50...

Go Dennis

[cyberpj]

141. Who pays for this if they do it? Does anyone know? I'll gladly contribute. His statement is perfect.

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-asks-for-new-hampshire-recount-in-the-interest-of-election-integrity/


“New Hampshire is in the unique position to address – and, if so determined, rectify – these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation,” Kucinich wrote in his letter.

“Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process,” said Kucinich, who is campaigning in Michigan this week in advance of next Tuesday’s Presidential primary in that state.

[K Gardner]

158. Its $80,000, the campaign pays for it, but the money gets refunded

if any errors are found.. I think that's right, but someone will correct me if not !

[cyberpj]

344. thanks. nt

[Junkdrawer]

142. Any Corporate Media reports of this yet?

:shrug:

I'll go check Google News...

[KoKo]

149. If we wait for MainSteam McCable where many of us go...it won't hit there

too soon...unless it's a "Snarky One Liner" about "Sore Kuchinich" whining again about lost votes.

But, let me be positive and hope that Joe Scarborough does this as his LEDE STORY tomorrow and that Mika B. and the rest of the psychophants just go at it and make it the "Second Coming" story!

I've got my fingers crossed.........:eyes:

[Junkdrawer]

150. So Far? The Hill and The Business Wire.....

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&um=1&tab=wn&q=Kucinich+Recount&btnG=Search+News

[EFerrari]

154. The corporate media is years behind the net.

It took NYTs three years to report what we gave them in 2004.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

307. According to my local NY NBC news this AM, there are only 3 Democratic candidates left.

So do you really think they'll mention this?

[dailykoff]

156. The audacity of hope.

An American hero. :thumbsup:

[K Gardner]

162. How dare he give the people False Hope that our votes will be counted. I demand a Reality Check !

:sarcasm:

[dailykoff]

167. The cream is rising the top

just like it always does, ya know?

[KoKo]

170. lol's...I know what you mean along with others...n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

293. I'm sure that those with who have brought us "35 years of change"

Will be throwing flowers and garlands.

Right?

[bdamomma]

173. Dennis you have to love this guy, to be so upfront and always

looking for the answers. He's a fighter alright.

[robinlynne]

178. I am sending him money and thanks right now. He just restored my faith in the

human race! Because, believe me, watching one more election steal with no Dem action was going to hurt too much to bear.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

180. K&R n/t

[NeedleCast]

182. Why?

Are there any candidates other than DK who are claiming that the results are inaccurate?

[KoKo]

187. They seem to have NOT heard even with e-mails and books and articles....

Maybe it's just too silly...far fetched or they want to plug their ears and do: NAHHHHHH....NAHHHH...NAHHHH...

So much effort...and Conyers Basement Hearings plus Supreme Court giving election to the CHIMP? And they can still claim they don't know? States are revising their HAVA ACT MANDATE...New York STATE never gave up their LEVER MACHINES...yet CANDIDATES ...CLAIM...we KNOW NUTHING...NUTHing.....WHA? :nuke:

[NeedleCast]

191. I have no idea what you just said

[Kurovski]

230. "The candidates are in denial about Election fraud."

[weeve]

287. This isn't about the CANDIDATES

It's about the integrity of the vote. Frankly, this should be done after every non-transparent election.

[byronius]

184. Damn these sticklers for democracy! Don't they care how this looks?

Substance is so OVER. And BORING.
:sarcasm:

GO DENNIS!!!

[mzmolly]

186. I'm sorry but can't Dennis go quietly into the night

or something? Good grief. :crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. Why are transparent elections so damn scary for some?

This is NOT about one candidate, but the process

Good grief indeed...

If my candidate is winning who cares about transparency... and democracy...

Banana republic indeed!

[mzmolly]

193. Edwards is my candidate. And, I don't think this is about transparency.

It's about ego.

[nadinbrzezinski]

278. Then I guess OH in 2004 was the ego of the Green party as well

the only way this shit is going to stop is that we demand it stops...

[Desertrose]

194. Why do you want to just down the only voice speaking out??

Why is he so threatening to people here?


I say Go Dennis and THANK YOU for having the courage to say what needs to be said.

[mzmolly]

196. He's only threatening to himself at this point.

He's simply annoying to me. Sorry DR, I know the man means much to you. I just don't agree that his motives are as pure as they appear. I think he likes to stay in the 'news.'

[EFerrari]

200. Our motives are always a salad, aren't they?

Lol. And sometimes, we manage to help each other out anyway. :)

[mzmolly]

212. Eh, I'd say they're more like a

buffet.:P A buffet lacking any continuity, but in the end I hope we're all satisfied? ;) :hi:

[Desertrose]

205. Sorry you feel he's annoying...but I understand that sometimes

we just don't like a candidate.....just the way it is....

I really can't speak to his motives, I am grateful however, that he is bringing up points that I consider important,cause none of the other candidates are doing it.

If its a way to keep him in the news, so be it- at least he is talking about important issues.

What really means much to me is being able to see through all the lies games & bullshit that we keep getting handed over & over....

:) DR

[mzmolly]

210. What if NH comes back clean?

Then legitimate issues fall by the wayside? New Hampshire has optiscan machines. This is not a state that is prone to serious issues.

http://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/map.php?&topic_string=5std&year=2006&state=New%20Hampshire

I'd rather raise this issue when legit exit polls don't match the end result rather than when we have a result we don't like as it could do more harm than good. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

217. Op Scan scanners have memory units you can take out and slip

into your pocket. The scanners are computers, not adding machines.

And, when you think about it, NH has had some pretty strange results, including 2004.

If it comes back clean, we'll know our candidate has a fair shot there in November. That's what really matters to me, not this primary result.

/accuracy

[mzmolly]

221. If it comes back clean I fear that NH will be used as an example of a

'needless/costly' exercise in futility? Also, November won't be clean because one state is. We still have many states with DRE machines that should be converted to a system like optiscan.

I realize that the scanners are computers, but they are computers that tabulate the vote, much like adding machines. The recount will involve the same machines, not people - correct?

[EFerrari]

226. No, the recount will be done by hand, if it is done.

We have the same system here if not the same brand. I fill out a ballot and it is scanned into a tabulator.

And no, it's not like an adding machine. That's what I thought, too, until the ER explained it to me. You can program the tabulators.

We have to get over the idea that auditing our elections is needless or futile. It's simply what a healthy democracy does.

If NH comes back clean, we've sent a good strong message that we are watching. And, it's about time, too.

/ack

[Cooley Hurd]

231. Whether one is for or against a recount, at least this will get people talking about election fraud

...again!:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

238. And not a second too soon.

:toast:

[mzmolly]

232. I don't think audits are futile, I think they are necessary IN EVERY STATE.

I also support paper ballots in every state/county/district.

It's my understanding that NH conducts hand verified audits? If NH comes back clean, like it did when Nader/Camejo requested a recount, I think we may send the message that we are squaking every time we don't like a result?

Iowa has touch screen machines, shouldn't we be watching them? Why only ask to recount New Hampshire? Wouldn't Dennis do a better job at raising awareness by requesting recounts in Iowa counties where they don't have a paper ballot?

[EFerrari]

236. Iowa's process was out in the open, with bodies in rooms.

It's an entirely different and much more transparent process.

Since the result in NH as been called the biggest upset in the history of the NH primary, and since the media is still trying to explain the outcome, it's not unreasonable to conduct an audit or a recount. The spinners will spin, regardless.

[mzmolly]

244. If the exit polls were suspect I'd agree. Also, I don't trust touch screen machines

regardless of whether or not they have people in the room.

I just read that the recount WILL happen, I guess we'll all have to see what the end result is. I'm guessing it will match the exit polls in this case?

Peace sfexpat. :hi:

[EFerrari]

247. No touch screens were used in the caucus.

'Splain me this: how can people who are smart enough to hold a caucus turn around and use touch screens in their elections?

lol

:silly:

[mzmolly]

265. Ahhh, well ya got a point there!

LOL. I keep wishing we'd have a vote, vs. a caucus in our state as well, no go on that one. So much for my demanding Iowa have a recount huh? I'm glad Dennis didn't take me up on that suggestion. ;)

[mhatrw]

406. The exit polls WERE suspect until they were adjusted to match the results.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4025079&mesg_id=4025079

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535

This doesn't mean that I don't share your fear of this recount being used to dismiss 100% legitimate and critical concerns about hidden, proprietary machine vote counting. But, on the whole, it is better to recount than not recount whenever and wherever possible.

[mzmolly]

412. Thx, mhatrw - Were they 'adjusted' or did the results simply mirror what happened

in the end? I've heard conflicing reports. I don't know that I agree with recounts as much as ongoing audits, and a paper trail but ... we'll see how it all shakes out. :hi:

[mhatrw]

414. Just glance at this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4025079&mesg_id=4025079

The evidence is overwhelming that the exit poll results were being constantly being adjusted throughout the night to match the actual returns.

[Desertrose]

218. What if it doesn't?

Counting the votes and making sure they are the way the voters intended is more important than whether the results are to our liking. I can abide by the count if it is honest. I don't know if we've had one for many many many years. I for one am glad Dennis is bringing this up early in the process.

Why has nothing been done about Diebold in the past 4+ years?? Why should election fraud be allowed to continue unchallenged?

[mzmolly]

225. I'd like your scenario on that issue as I've given you mine on the 'what if it's ok' front.

Election fraud should be challenged in situations where there is a reason to believe it happened. I think we have to be cautious that we don't cry 'wolf' because we don't like the results of an election. Every state needs a paper trail, NH has one, thankfully.

[Desertrose]

229. If its OK you mean?

I hope it is. I still want to believe our votes are counted in the way they were intended. So if it comes out clean, then they will know that we are watching closely and I hope it will make it tougher to change the votes.


I don't see this as crying wolf at all. There have certainly been more than enough instances to cause doubt. I say good for us, good for Dennis or whoever, and it gives the message..... "We are watching you."

DR

edit:(I hate typos what the hell was a "wold" anyway?))

[mzmolly]

234. I respect that position

DR. :hi:

[Individualist]

216. "...his motives"

DK is a man of integrity and courage. Too bad other elected Democrats can't be that "egotistic".

[Desertrose]

219. I agree. I feel his motives are genuinely positive...

but I can't make anyone else believe it if they don't want to.
:shrug:

Peace
DR

[loudsue]

394. Hi Desertrose! I knew you were lurking in these parts!

So good to have your beautiful voice added to the fray! :grouphug:

[Desertrose]

399. Hey Loudsue!!!

Just can't keep me quiet. :evilgrin:

How ya doin', hon? :hug:

[loudsue]

403. Still fighting the good fight!

It's election time again on DU! :hug:

[Desertrose]

405. Yeah..not hard to miss, is it? LOL

I'm tired of fightin'...I'd rather have a lovein! :evilgrin:

Don't see that happening here anytime soon though....

Hope all is good with you:hug:
DR

[HCE SuiGeneris]

199. Kind of like democracy?

[mzmolly]

211. No, like a candidate with about 1% of the vote.

:hi:

[rudy23]

419. He said he wasn't doing it because he expected it to change his total

But thanks for the real pro-democratic message.

[mzmolly]

433. .

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

190. Thanks Dennis

a clean process is VERY IMPORTANT

[NeedleCast]

201. How many recounts will it take?

One recount good? If we count the votes, then count them again, and everything seems to be on the up-and-up, are we good? Do we need to re-count the re-count?

[Nictuku]

213. That is what the Republicans were saying

.... when the Supreme Court ordered the first recount stopped.

[NeedleCast]

339. So Your Argument is...

...that we should continue recounts until your pony wins? I'm not really opposed to a recount. What I am opposed to is endless recounts based on some people's assumption that the count is wrong until their candidate wins. The whole "but, but, but was 'posta win so we need a recount and if that recount matches the first count then we need a recount of the recount by an independent source (important note: There's no such thing) and if that recount verifies the first two counts then we'll have my grandmother, a really honest, nice old lady, count all the ballots by hand..."

[Kip Humphrey]

209. Thank You Dennis!

[philly_bob]

220. Constructive outcome of disheartening episode in U.S. politics ... and on DU

But prepare for a new set of controversies over "chain of custody" issues. And I expect there'll also be calls for contributions to cover the costs of a recount.

But I'll happily live with all that ... as long as we're moving closer to transparent elections in America.

And let's make up here on DU. We tinfoil-hat-wearing election reforms were NOT sour-graping over one candidate's victory.

[Junkdrawer]

222. BRAD BLOG HAS MORE.....

The BRAD BLOG has just spoken with a Kucinich press spokesperson who was not yet aware of the full scope of the hand count being called for. As we can learn more, of course, we will share it.

....

We would also caution Kucinich and his team, to closely inspect the chain-of-custody for the ballots in question, and what has happened to them, and the vulnerable op-scan memory cards, since the election two days ago, during the period that concern has been widely expressed about the seemingly anomalous results of Tuesday's election. It's important that the chain of custody be both secure, and fully logged and transparent.

Granite State Election Integrity watchdog group, New Hampshire for Democracy's, Nancy Tobi has previously noted her concern in earlier discussions about the possibility of hand counting the state's op-scan primary ballots.

"We have no control over the ballot chain of custody and we have learned the pain from the 2004 Nader recount, in which only 11 districts were counted, chosen by a highly questionable person, and then nothing showed up," she wrote recently. "Now all we hear is how the Nader recount validated the machines. A candidate asking for a recount may well be a tool used to 'prove" everything was okay and then that candidate will be further discredited," she warned.

....

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5544

[EFerrari]

242. Nancy has to stop second guessing and giveing the opposition

talking points, if she can.

I understand the impulse but, it's not useful.

[Junkdrawer]

243. Well, I think the warning is that, for $2000, they pick a few precincts...

and, surprise, surprise, all is hunky dory.

If you go in, it's all or nothing.

[EFerrari]

246. I supose you'd need to be a very strong person with a strong team

who communicates very well in order to avoid that kind of trap.

[Junkdrawer]

248. Remember that they channeled Gore into just an overcount / undercount recount.

And when the Florida Supremes said "Recount it all"....That's when the the SCOTUS jumped in with both feet.

IMHO, any chance of exposing true election fraud will bring in the BIG GUNS.

[marions ghost]

404. kick

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Political Heretic]

241. This Edwards supporter fully supports Kucinich's request for a recount!!!

WE MUST REQUEST RECOUNTS IN EVERY ELECTION WHERE THERE ARE UNACCOUNTABLE VOTING MACHINES AND WHERE THE PROCESS IS NOT TRANSPARENT TO THE PEOPLE

Do I think the results in NH are fixed? NO.

Does Dennis think a recount will change his results? NO HE DOES NOT.

But we just had a vote where we have no way to VERIFY the accuracy of the vote count!

Why would ANYONE want that???????

[ClayZ]

250. WooooHoooo! Dennis Kucinich is a HERO!

K and R

[MadHound]

257. That darn, kooky Dennis, going and doing the right thing again

And again and again and again. . .

This is why Dennis has such ardent supporters, he has the right stand on the issues, he does the right thing no matter what, a candidate with honesty and integrity.

[dailykoff]

259. It's a huge insult to the invisible women of New Hampshire.

I'm leaving and taking my sock puppets with me!!11

[fuzzy otter pop]

267. we sould recount early and often and when ever anyone ask for one

[HCE SuiGeneris]

295. Nice coherent sentence structure, with extra points for spelling.

:applause:

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

279. So this is NOT news? 'xcuse me while I barf

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Democracy is not a spectator sport!

[sss1977]

306. lol, perfect!

[weeve]

281. Just fantastic !!

Dennis is the man ! I sure as hell hope this goes through. This is a win-win move. At the very worst it will make Diebold(Premier) think twice before pulling any crap in the future (hopefully), knowing that results may well be double checked. At its best, the results will indeed be seen to not match up, which will increase calls to change this system before November. Hell, let 'em keep their damned optiscan ballots ( filled by hand, and on paper ) and then mandate random (TRULY RANDOM, unlike Ohio) audits in any number of districts (the more the merrier). I'd gladly wait a week for the results, if it restored my faith in the system.

This is just fantastic of Dennis. Let's hope he stays in until the convention, and that other states a) vote on paper, and b) allow this sort of recount.

[marions ghost]

346. yep & ditto

:thumbsup: Kucinich :patriot:

[robbedvoter]

286. Who knew? The fighter wasn't the fighter!

[politicallore]

289. Go Buddy go!!

What a patriot

[lumberjack_jeff]

290. Hot damn! From my mouth to God's ears! n/t

[frog92969]

297. "No Recount Please"

No, I'm not a Clinton supporter.
Here's some VERY valuable food for thought.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30018

I was all for a recount, now I wonder.

[KaptBunnyPants]

298. Good. We should be using hand counted ballots for every election.

I'm anything but a technophobe, but the idea of using proprietary software to process votes should be stupid enough to set off anyone's alarm bells. If a state insists on using black box voting, we should insist on hand recounts. Yes, I know they can be rigged too, but make the other side earn it. If the recount finds nothing interesting, we've haven't lost anything. If the recount shows a discrepancy, LHS is hurt. I'm not seeing a downside, except the inexplicable "they'll make fun of us" noise from the usual losers(cowards).

[1776Forever]

314. I stand with you - Isn't it time someone took a stand - Let's see what happens!

It is amazing to me how little minded some people are to think that it is one candidate or the other that is being touted by this action of making sure the votes are counted correctly! Come on - it is in the country's best interests to know. Thank you Dennis for your courage to stand up and be "counted"! :applause:

[orleans]

300. i keep kicking and recommending these threads. yay!! n/t

[muryan]

301. a woman won a primary? IMPOSSIBLE

it must be a mistake, or worse. Kucinich only knows how to play this card, if he does anything else nobody pays attention. Let him enjoy another 15 minutes in the spotlight but after this can we please stop?

[dailykoff]

303. In this case, yes.

And don't worry, nobody in the media is paying the least attention to Dennis, as usual.

[cgrindley]

325. Hillary haters can go suck eggs

you LOST LOST LOST LOST LOST!!!!! get over it. You LOST. IN. YOUR. FACE.

[Marr]

366. Yes, I know-- "get over it", "sore losermans", we've all heard it before.

[cgrindley]

379. Wait until she wins the nomination... then I'm really gonna gloat (nt)

[Marr]

387. If there's a recount, and Hillary Clinton wins it,

I won't be at all disappointed, so I don't know why you'd want to gloat. If a recount says she actually won, then the election process functioned here and we can all be encouraged by that. I rather doubt there'll be a recount, though.

By the way-- if the Hillary Clinton campaign or it's surrogates manage to block a recount-- will you still feel like gloating? I know how Bush's fans responded to the Supreme Court's decision. I have to wonder if a similar dynamic would be greeted with cheers from Hillary's supporters.

[Norrin Radd]

302. k+r

[DainBramaged]

311. Let's prepare to recount all remaining 48 states until the Obama supporters get the results thy want

Eating your own young, a tried and true Democratic practice.


Fucking Repugs are laughing at us and rubbing their hands at the lack of strength and unity.

[Rockholm]

313. Exactly. Let's round up the caucus goers in Iowa.

What a bunch of hooey here.

[Breeze54]

312. Good on Dennis Kucinich! He's never afraid to stand up to the machine, as usual!

[Junkdrawer]

315. Not a peep on CNN.com, MSN.com, CBSNEWS.com etc...

Looks like a pretty effective blackout so far...

[Breeze54]

319. It was reported on ABC & NBC & CBS news just an hour ago...

[Hubert Flottz]

321. DEMAND IT DENNIS!

You paid your money when you got on the ballot for a FAIR count, now DEMAND what you paid for!

[Breeze54]

324. It isn't to recount his votes...

Kucinich asks for New Hampshire recount in the interest of election integrity

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/homepage-items/kucinich-asks-for-new-hampshire-recount-in-the-interest-of-election-integrity/

DETROIT, MI – Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election because of “unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.”


“I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf,” Kucinich stressed in a letter to Secretary of State William M. Gardner. But, “Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days…It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery – not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election.”

More....


more....

[bdamomma]

330. thanks breeze54!!!

:hi:

[Hubert Flottz]

335. I understood that.

But the man has every right to demand a fair count.

I'm glad he had the guts to say what they all should be saying. The man is a patriot.

[Breeze54]

338. I totally agree. He's a champion of the people!

[bdamomma]

326. this must be done before the GE

give donations to Dennis recounts cost alot.

[pjt7]

337. These numbers are amazing

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

[Pooka Fey]

391. thanks for the heads-up - recounts are expensive - I remember Ohio 2004

[debbierlus]

333. As a voting rights advocate, I applaud him

Elections MUST be transparent & without question.

[Yurovsky]

340. When is a recount BAD?

I mean, unless your G.W. Chimpy, why wouldn't you want a recount of ANY election? Anyone who believes in democracy should want the results to be accurate and free from fraud.

[smoogatz]

341. Good for him.

I don't actually think there was any deliberate attempt to hack the vote, but serious tabulator malfunction is a real possibility. Something like 10% of all supermarket scans are inaccurate—it's basically the same technology.

[FourScore]

348. Dennis, you are a hero and a patriot!!!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

:bounce: :kick: :pals: :headbang: :yourock: :applause: :popcorn: :thumbsup:

[Dinger]

349. As Of Right Now, My Choice Is Clear

The media belittles him, disrespects him, ignores him, discounts him, and so does our so-called Democratic Party.
How about if lightning strikes and dennis strikes gold! I am hearing very, very little, if anything, being said on integrity in the voting process by any of the candidates. Why WOULDN"T they want to talk about it? After the last two selections, it's a major issue with me.

[EFerrari]

350. Millions of people have been killed, injured or displaced

because of those selections.

:shrug:

[LynneSin]

352. So,um why isn't Obama asking for it?

This is a joke - seriously!

[lakeguy]

421. because people like you would be on here

calling him a WHINER and to just get over it - seriously. same thing would happen to edwards. the media would be all over them in a heartbeat.

of course the winner wouldn't request it. so who is going to to do it, you? nope. kucinich does it knowing he isn't going to win and will surely get lambasted by the media and even members of his own party.

i can't believe how so many dems can be against this. this country is seriously f'ed if a forum like this has so many people against transparent elections. it's depressing enough that we have come to the point where we can't trust the vote totals. now we have trouble convincing people that transparent elections are a good thing?

[moondust]

356. Thanks DK!

[loudsue]

360. HELL YES!!!!

THIS is what a patriot does! He fights for our rights even when it makes him look "politically incorrect"!!!!

:bounce: Go Dennis!!!! :applause::woohoo:

[Marr]

364. The response to this call could itself suggest wrongdoing.

I don't know if there's going to actually be a recount or not, but if the Clinton campaign (or it's unofficial surrogates) takes steps to block a recount... I will assume they have a reason to.

[windoe]

367. Election fraud must be stopped in it's tracks,

like impeachment, it is an American issue.
No one knows what Democrat will be the next president, but a fair election is needed NOW. America needs to unite around these issues.
Repubs and Democrats need to see this is not political but a civil rights issue!!!

I have been losing faith because it feels as if Goliath is taking over, and not enough people are working together. My conscience tells me Dennis Kucinich has all the right ideas, but he does not have enough back up---us. We drank just enough coolaide(me included) to believe America is not ready for Dennis. My conscience tells me Dennis is the only one drawing the line HERE, wanting impeachment NOW before this country is taken away from us, and saying NOW-no more election fraud!!

Are we ready to draw the line NOW to criminals taking over our country? Are we ready? I believe we can support the issues of impeachment and fair elections while still supporting another candidate for president.

[Pawel K]

368. I just this is much more effective than passing actual legislation to ban these machines

I mean its not like you guys have the majority in congress or anything.

:sarcasm:

[Enrique]

376. ban optical scan machines?

why?

[sce56]

393. It is not the scan machine but rather the GEMS software that tabulates that can be hacked!

We need to have open software not corporate controlled secret vote counts!



I suggest you read this article in the NY Times last Sunday they finally got it!
Can You Count on Voting Machines?


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1200028147-HpqslVDW1+Puigb4MaFvnQ



Jane Platten gestured, bleary-eyed, into the secure room filled with voting machines. It was 3 a.m. on Nov. 7, and she had been working for 22 hours straight. “I guess we’ve seen how technology can affect an election,” she said. The electronic voting machines in Cleveland were causing trouble again. For a while, it had looked as if things would go smoothly for the Board of Elections office in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. About 200,000 voters had trooped out on the first Tuesday in November for the lightly attended local elections, tapping their choices onto the county’s 5,729 touch-screen voting machines. The elections staff had collected electronic copies of the votes on memory cards and taken them to the main office, where dozens of workers inside a secure, glass-encased room fed them into the “GEMS server,” a gleaming silver Dell desktop computer that tallies the votes.

Then at 10 p.m., the server suddenly froze up and stopped counting votes. Cuyahoga County technicians clustered around the computer, debating what to do. A young, business-suited employee from Diebold — the company that makes the voting machines used in Cuyahoga — peered into the screen and pecked at the keyboard. No one could figure out what was wrong. So, like anyone faced with a misbehaving computer, they simply turned it off and on again. Voilà: It started working — until an hour later, when it crashed a second time. Again, they rebooted. By the wee hours, the server mystery still hadn’t been solved.

Worse was yet to come. When the votes were finally tallied the next day, 10 races were so close that they needed to be recounted. But when Platten went to retrieve paper copies of each vote — generated by the Diebold machines as they worked — she discovered that so many printers had jammed that 20 percent of the machines involved in the recounted races lacked paper copies of some of the votes. They weren’t lost, technically speaking; Platten could hit “print” and a machine would generate a replacement copy. But she had no way of proving that these replacements were, indeed, what the voters had voted. She could only hope the machines had worked correctly.

[MADem]

408. There are no "printers" or "printouts" involved with these ballots in NH

Each voter gets a piece of paper. They fill in the oval next to their candidate, and shove the paper into a machine. The ballots are counted, either by the machine or by hand, and then they are impounded. The raw data, those ballots, is still accessible.

[sce56]

418. Exactley there is a paper trail but the tabulating is still done by a central server that is easily

HACKABLE! We've been talking about this since after the theft of 2k just read the online book
http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/

http://blackboxvoting.com/book/bbv_chapter-01.pdf
through
http://blackboxvoting.com/book/bbv_chapter-14.pdf

[MADem]

445. And the ballots of EVERY VOTER are available to be recounted.

Which is why anyone hacking would be an idiot, because there'd be evidence of it in those voter ballots.

[loudsue]

400. "you guys" or "us"????

Are you with us?

[peabody71]

370. Brilliant, Incredible, Awesome.

ACCOUNTABILITY NOW!!!!

[ooglymoogly]

389. and to add; There are several UFO's who hover on threads like this one

Go for it Dennis, we got your back

[Pooka Fey]

392. Thank you Dennis Kucinich for doing the right thing!

[plasticsundance]

398. Is this where the Clinton DUers pick up their ball and go home?

[dailykoff]

416. And their nutcrackers.

:hi:

[earth mom]

407. K & R! nt

[Mithreal]

417. Doesn't always take a gun to defend our democracy

Whatever the reasons, there should always be a hand count. Cheers to Congressman Kucinich! Let's see the other candidates show his courage to defend every American and our republic. It doesn't always require a gun to defend democracy, sometimes it takes a well placed voice.

[K Gardner]

420. Update !! 430 replies. 136 recs. Views: 8,383. Thread takes 15 seconds to load !

Tell me people aren't interested in this topic.

[Junkdrawer]

423. "Well, if there were more than one thread on the recount, GD and GDP...

would become divisive."

I DARE you to say that with a straight face.

[K Gardner]

432. ROFL... you made me load this damned Monster Thread again and now I'm sitting here with my

computer about to blow up and just spewed coke all over my monitor !!

:beer: :nuke: :hi:

[Moochy]

443. It has come to our attention...

...that this is a highly contentious issue of much concern that is a distraction... therefore discussion of said topic shall be summarily nixed... oops. Sorry, one second, ah yes... one of the (lesser) Optimates has brought forth your complaint. Carry on proles.

[Indi Guy]

439. k

Go Dennis!

[Imagevision]

444. The M$M will never report on this story...

[DFW]

447. Fine with me

I'm not really bothered if the result stays the same or is altered.

The only thing I care about right now is that a Democrat is inaugurated
next January. If a NH recount shows up flaws, then fine, adjust the result.
If they do away with all electronic voting, it won't be a moment too soon,
as far as I'm concerned. If the NH result stays the same, then, I'm fine
with that, too.

With the price of gold approaching $900, the euro approaching $1.50, oil
at $100, Cheneybush desperately looking for Iran to provide them an
excuse to start another Republican jihad abroad, and pack the Supreme Court
with disciples of Tomás de Torquemada at home, no one can tell me that
Edwards, HRC or Obama is a worse alternative, and all the Republicans
now running are either Bushies or nut cases (or both).