Kucinich did NOT ask for a recount.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I just checked CNN, MSNBC, NYT, all the major news outlets. Not a peep. Even tried AlterNet, HuffPost, BuzzFlash... nothing. Shoot, I can usually at least count on MichaelMoore.com but no. Apparently this is not just a non-story... it isn't really happening.

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Yes he did

the AP has reported it

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_po/kucinich_nh_recount_3

[FlyingSquirrel]

4. THANK YOU!

MonkeyFunk, I hereby take back all the bad things I never said about you.

I swear to god if the MSM buried this story of all stories, well..... I was getting ready for actual armed revolution. And I'm a peaceable kind of guy.

(Please don't seize my assets Mr. Bush for saying the words "armed revolution".)

[WilliamPitt]

10. I love me some Dennis, but...

...isn't he running for something, and about to hit two states that didn't give him 2% four years ago?

I'm imagining Kucinich staffers in apoplexy because time spent on recounting yet another 2% showing forced them to nuke two primary state schedules, appearances, speeches, press releases, meet-and-greets...etc.

Yes, NH fraud concerns are very important. But there are other people who can handle it who aren't the head of a national campaign, and if nobody has stepped up on NH, someone needs to get the peerless Obi-Wan Badnarik on the phone.

If Kucinich wants to concentrate on House-Rep.-level stuff (which this is and needs to be soon, paging Mr. Hodes), he should save everyone the time and go back to Congress.

Last I heard, he was running to become President of the United States of America, and a lot of people have ponied up for the second time to help him do it. Win or lose, respecting that committment demands total committment from him. If he doesn't feel like being totally committed, well, hey, at least he got to tour the country again.

Wow, it's like I'm back in time...I've sen this once before...

:grr:

[Lucinda]

33. I believe he's campaigning in Michigan right now.

And it's a mighty small ballot now that almost everyone else has yanked their names off...a little national media right about now wouldnt hurt that.

That said, I'm all for a recount if it appears there truly are grounds to have one.

[WilliamPitt]

34. He's on the ballot?

I tuned out on Michigan's primary mayhem a while ago, so I'm not up on what the situation is now. Got my morning assignment. :)

[MonkeyFunk]

35. Yes

he's on the ballot as are Clinton and, I believe, Dodd.

But I doubt he's campaigning there - all the candidates pledged not to.

[Lucinda]

37. He is. I read about it last night, and someone just posted about him campaigning here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4031771&mesg_id=4031771

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Strange

he signed a pledge not to campaign there.

And, He tried to get his name taken off the ballot but didn't file the paperwork in time. :eyes:

http://www.essentialestrogen.com/2007/10/kucinich_campaign_misses_deadl.html

[Lucinda]

39. Yup. Very strange. Unless he never actually agreed to the pledge. If he did

I can't see why he broke his pledge... unless he figures, as I do, that the delegates will be seated at the convention after all, and he thought he'd go for the anti-Hillary votes?

This really is is a bizarre year.....

[MonkeyFunk]

40. according to the news reports

he DID sign the pledge, AND tried (but failed) to get his name taken off the ballot.

[Lucinda]

42. I was certain he tried to remove his name...just foggy about the pledge part.

There is a lot about DK that confuses me these days. I was very surprised about him supporting Obama in Iowa too.

[iamthebandfanman]

43. and gravel

but it doesnt matter since they get nothing from a win in michigan...
no delegates i mean

[Lucinda]

36. Yep. Kucinich tried to remove his name but didn't file in time.

Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel still on the ballot.

Well...I guess Dodd will be off now too.

[LeftCoast]

2. This is just publicity-seeking by DK. He has no intention of funding a recount.

Feh

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. Feh yourself.

At least SOMEONE gives a fuck whether we still live in a fucking DEMOCRACY where the fucking VOTES ARE NOT HACKED.

[LeftCoast]

7. Easy excuse

"at least he cares"

He cares about publicity. If he cared about the recount he would be funding it.

[99th_Monkey]

11. Recounts are a part of a heathy democracy, and there's lots of good reasons for them

So you're saying if someone won't personally pony up the money for a legitimately requested recount out of their own pocket, that they
are only "seeking publicity"??? please.

[LeftCoast]

14. No. I'm saying that this particular incident is nothing more than a publicity stunt by DK

[99th_Monkey]

17. Cool. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post.

[MadHound]

41. Actually, since he called for it, he will be funding it

Any other bullshit excuses for subverting democracy that you want to pull out?

[99th_Monkey]

6. Yes. Defending the US Constitition & clean elections is SO-O-O POPULAR

see how far it's gotten him (1-2% of the vote?) so far... sadly IMHO.

I feel it's safe to say Dennis is again showing integrity and balls of steel while others shrink from
the tough questions and issues.

[LeftCoast]

8. See post #7

Thx.

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. Unfortunately Feh dude is right - No way can Kucinich afford it.

Guess you get the best democracy you can afford eh?

Obama could get it done for only $2000 'cause he lost by less than 3% of the vote. Kucinich has to pay for the entire recount. Obama will never ask for the recount 'cause he doesn't want to look like a "sore loser". Too busy "focusing on the future".

What future will there be in this country?

[99th_Monkey]

13. So does anyone know what kind of money we're talking about?

[orleans]

12. hey leftcoast

"Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_po/kucinich_nh_recount_3

if kucinich can't spring for the $2000 then i will pay for the damn thing!

so, either way--we've got it covered.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. But Kucinich lost by more than 3%

so either he funds the whole thing (I read the cost at $80,000), or it's just a gesture.

[LeftCoast]

26. It's late. I had to read that article three or four times, but I think you're correct

If I'm understanding correctly now, candidates in a close race who lose by a couple of percentage points get a cheapo recount. DK lost by a huge number of points so this wouldn't come into play. The confusing part is that DK's campaign sent in $2k which is pretty pointless since they'll have to pay the full amount.

[orleans]

31. where are you getting 80,000? i went back and i see i read wrong/

misunderstood

well--i say i hope he goes for it

[MonkeyFunk]

32. I read it in some other article,

and I'm sorry, I can't seem to find it now.

But it seems in line with Ron Paul's $65,000 figure, if you account for the higher dem turnout.

[LeftCoast]

18. Huh. Looks like NH picks up the tab for the PR stunt then

I'll apologize to DK if this turns up anything fraud related.

[FlyingSquirrel]

21. That's not the point

The point is that a LOT of people are suspicious and we want the seeming discrepancies explained.

If they are explained to our satisfaction, then the recount was worth it even if fraud is not discovered. In fact, I personally am HOPING there was no fraud. Still want the recount. Even the NH official is saying this could be a good thing to be able to prove that their voting system is sound.

[LeftCoast]

I think it's fine that they're doing a recount

I just find the whole theory of fraud in this particular election to be highly unlikely and fueled primarily by who won.

[FlyingSquirrel]

25. You really think we'd be up in arms if she had been consistently

winning the pre-election polls? I don't think she won a single one!

[LeftCoast]

27. When she was consistently winning in the polls people questioned their validity

Just like they're doing now with the vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. No

He lost by more than 3%, so he'd have to pay the full cost, which I saw somewhere was around $80,000.

Ron Paul's website says HIS recount would be $65,000, but the Republican turnout was much lower.

[LeftCoast]

29. Sorry meant to post #26 here

I now see you are correct. Thanks for helping to point that out.

[99th_Monkey]

3. Add it to the volumes of news totally ignored by M$M for all-to-obvious reasons

They think if they ignore stories that doesn't fit MegaCorpUSA's agenda long enough, it might just go away.

[orleans]

16. here's good news:

"Scanlon said his office had received several phone calls since Tuesday, mostly from outside the state, questioning the results. New Hampshire's voting machines are not linked in any way, which Scanlon says reduce the likelihood of tampering with results on a statewide level. Also, the results can be checked against paper ballots."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_po/kucinich_nh_recount_3

LET THE RECOUNT BEGIN!

k&r

[FlyingSquirrel]

19. "the results can be checked against paper ballots"

Sure they can. Unless the printer jammed. Or there was a software glitch that prevented some of them from printing. Or who knows what other excuses there might be. Maybe some of them ran out of paper. Maybe what got printed on the paper didn't match what the machine recorded, but does that mean that what was printed was correct? Or was the vote that was recorded by the machine correct?

See the problem?

[LeftCoast]

20. You misread

NH has optical scan balloting for the most part. SF uses the same system. You mark a paper ballot which is then scanned and tallied. The hand-marked ballot remains as evidence.

[FlyingSquirrel]

24. In a way that's good news.. in a way bad.

If the system is good, obviously I'm happy. Unfortunately it would also mean we could be looking at just the tip of the iceberg since there are so many different systems, many of which could be worse and we could see endless recounts DURING THE PRIMARY SEASON if it stays close between the candidates.

When has this ever happened in our history? It could end up being a hundred times worse than 2000.

[FlyingSquirrel]

28. I gotta go to bed. I've had it.

Why can't we just have ONE single simple system nationwide that is very nearly foolproof? What is so damn difficult about that?

[LeftCoast]

30. G'nite! Here's to hoping for a clean and transparent election system!

:toast:

[MonkeyFunk]

23. No

they VOTE on paper. These aren't voting machines. You use ink on paper to vote.

The ballots are tabulated by machine.