WE NEED YOUR HELP! Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Current Topics
Trump 2.0
by rporter314 - 03/15/25 12:19 AM
2024 Election Forum
by rporter314 - 03/11/25 11:16 PM
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 6 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Agnostic Politico, Jems, robertjohn, BlackCat13th, ruggedman
6,305 Registered Users
Popular Topics(Views)
10,260,930 my own book page
5,051,286 We shall overcome
4,250,778 Campaign 2016
3,856,350 Trump's Trumpet
3,055,543 3 word story game
Top Posters
pdx rick 47,430
Scoutgal 27,583
Phil Hoskins 21,134
Greger 19,831
Towanda 19,391
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
Irked 1
Forum Statistics
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,541
Members6,305
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,520
Likes: 2
BC Offline OP
veteran
OP Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,520
Likes: 2
Quote
In the end, the voters still decide

January 9, 2008 - 1:14am
New Hampshire voters reminded all of us who's in charge

By DOUG THOMPSON

The voters of New Hampshire reminded all of us Tuesday that elections are decided in the election booth and not on political talk shows, newspaper columns or web sites.

Polls predicted an easy win for Barack Obama. For most of Tuesday, the pundits talked about the demise of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the anointment of Obama as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party.

Even Clinton campaign insiders talked doom and gloom and dropped hints about staff shakeups and changes in message after an expected loss in the New Hampshire primary.

Then they counted the votes. Hillary took an early lead and never relinquished it. She won going away, taking nearly 40 percent of the vote and leaving Obama three points behind and the soon-to-be-history John Edwards all along in third place with 17 percent.

Obama tried to put the best face on it but the win in Iowa did not translate into "Big Mo" in New Hampshire. The voters of New Hampshire, many of whom are polled three and four times in a primary season, went into the booth and voted the way they wanted, not necessarily the way the told pollsters they might vote. Many made up their mind on election day.

Women voted for Clinton, men for Obama. Independents voted mostly for Obama but most independents decided not to vote in the Democratic primary but went over to the Republican side and gave John McCain a decisive victory over Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Tuesday night, the pundits watched the returns and wondered if anyone got the number of that truck that ran down their bold predictions.

Exit polls suggest women voters felt the men ganged up on Hillary at last weekend's debate and many said Clinton's teary-eyed performance on Monday also swayed their votes.

It wasn't the first time New Hampshire confounded the polls and the predictions. It won't be the last.

Just about everyone expected Hillary to go down -- us included. We thought she was toast after the Iowa loss and after reading the polls.

The pollsters got it wrong, the pundits blew the call and we forgot a basic rule of politics.

In the end, the voters still decide: And that is the way it should be.


link

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
The Crazy gets Crazier...

I was reading the home page articles and ran across the article "Are We There Yet". A gentleman posted a rather controversial comment in which he made the claim that the machine count was different than the hand count in the N.H. primary. He post the count differences. I then asked him for a source and it led me to the site listed beloew.

Apparently there is a site that hails as a Ron Paul Supporter site that is making the claim that the Diebold Machine count vs. Hand Count in New Hampshire had a serious discrepancy.

I have no way of knowing if the site is ligit. But, for your viewing pleasure...check it out. This site list town by town, city by city votes supposedly counted by hand and Diebold machines.

Oh meeeeeeee! Now this is a grand hoax and somebody has a lot of balls to even post such information. At this point in time, I have to believe this is constructed from either partial voting information or it's most likely out and out bogus.

LINK

Somebody went through a lot of time putting this site together.

Strange things happen in politics. Ron Paul is surely going to be terribly embarassed if it in any appears this could have originated from Paul's camp.



Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" wink

Yours Truly - Gregg


Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,723
H
old hand
Offline
old hand
H
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,723
Austin,
I just posted a question on the roundtable asking if anyone had run into Diebold-related issues in NH.

Now I'll read your source.

Looked at the source. Quick glance says diebold and hand-counted switched Clinton and Obama's ranking about equally in both. Didn't scream wrong-doing, but then a clever fixer wouldn't want that.

Below is the article I read. And, yes, I went to and read the full article he has in part.

"Tribune Media: MSM Failed to ... in New Hampshire Primary Results"

Last edited by humphreysmar; 01/10/08 09:14 PM.

Currently reading: Best American Mystery Stories edited by Lee Child and Otto Penzler. AARGH!
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
You know what a nut for statistics I am, mar. I studied those charts, town by town, and I see a number of anomalies, one of which could be vote tampering.

One of the big changes since the 2004 fiasco in Ohio is that when someone demands a hand count of all votes - and rest assured someone will, just as they did in Ohio in 2004 - the poll workers will have a strong deterrent to tampering with the ballots:
Quote
Two election workers in the state's most populous county were convicted Wednesday of illegally rigging the 2004 presidential election recount so they could avoid a more thorough review of the votes.
I'll watch for coverage from, at the very least, Bev Harris. I put no stock in the Ron Paul site, but Ms. Harris I believe is trustworthy, competent, and thorough.


Steve
Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.

(Native American prayer)

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
Ms. humphreysmar,

You're so right about the "fixer" being clever. It's just that I see this website as more than just dirty politics.

The only thing that keeps me from being totally outraged is that the site I posted it's not from someone who works for any of the candidates.

But, it's completely interesting at what lengths people will go through to skew or deceive. At first glance at the link I posted, it was...hmmmm, well a real jolt. Then when I settled down and began to read the 'small print' and more about the ownership of the site, I returned to the best level of sanity that's possible for me.

It's just that so many people will simply scan the site, not read the fine print and genuinely decide that the figure presented are factual numbers. It appears that the gentleman who posted that information on CHB Front Page...apparently he believes what he saw to be accurate and genuine figures.

I guess even though something of that magnitude would be front page news right now...and even before the man posted such information...is a clue that something is amuck.

Had there been such an event and the mainstream media picked up the story...investigated it, or at least began an investigation, everybody would be standing on their ear waiting to see what the hell was going on.

Meee Ohhhhh My...it's bad enough that we have such a corrupt bunch of politicians busting ass to deceive the public...now some private citizen who has decided that that form of politics and government is best for the American people.




Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" wink

Yours Truly - Gregg


Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
These interesting development just in:
"Liberated" – Women voters seize the day
Quote
More primary voters turned out in the Granite State than ever before, as a clear gender gap opened up with 57 per cent of voters in the Democratic primary being women. Of these, 46 per cent backed Mrs Clinton compared with just 34 per cent for Mr Obama. Among female voters aged 40 or more, she won 70 per cent support.

Mrs Clinton played down claims that her tearful appearance in a Portsmouth coffee shop on Monday had been the catalyst for the turnaround in a contest that Mr Obama had expected to win easily. Instead, aides said that a more personal and open approach had allowed voters to see the “real Hillary Clinton”.
Normally I wouldn't cite the London Times as a source, but this article is unusually "newsy". They have the data, and the quotes from Clinton spokespeople.

My guy to the rescue:
Kucinich calls for recount, citing "irregularities"
Quote
The lawmaker said he does not expect his own vote count to be significantly affected by such a recount but he added that 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.”

<SNIP>

“This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy,” Kucinich said. “It is about the integrity of the election process."

And!
Long Shot Republican calls for recount
Quote
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.


Steve
Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.

(Native American prayer)

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430
Likes: 373
Member
CHB-OG
Offline
Member
CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430
Likes: 373
At least the New Hampshire verification process should be relatively easy given the number of people who voted.

Shenanigans already, huh? [Linked Image from i48.photobucket.com]


Contrarian, extraordinaire


Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,004
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,004
Or, it could simply be that the Ron Paul voters are more suspicious of electronic voting than Romney voters, and so a higher percentage chose to use the paper ballot instead of the machine.

I am one of those who will not use an electronic machine if there is no paper audit trail / receipt.


Castigat Ridendo Mores
(laughter succeeds where lecturing fails)

"Those who will risk nothing, risk everything"
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129
Likes: 257
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129
Likes: 257
I suspect the critical difference between Iowa and New Hampshire was all in the process: A caucuse like Iowa's is determined by a much smaller percentage of the state's population than a simple primary election. After all, how long does it take to vote (or maybe just fill in a mail-in ballot)? Participation in the caucuses required many hours, travel time, money, complicated advance organization, etc.

A fairly small number of Iowa Obama-enthusiasts probably "flooded the system" because they were willing to do all of that for their candidate. If Iowa had a primary election instead, I think Senator Clinton would have won the Democratic side.

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151
Likes: 54
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 10,151
Likes: 54
I have to admit that I'm rather disturbed by the idea that when the polls don't match the election results, our concern is first about the accuracy of the election results.

I'm not saying it's unwarranted, because I don't know that. But I know for certain that I have never trusted polls more than the actual results.

If we've come to that point, why bother with the elections?

Should the differences be investigated? Yes, particularly if it can be done quickly, without huge expence, and with expectation of a definitive answer.

But, unless I'm misunderstanding the attitude towards the polls, it is definitely disturbing.


Julia
A 45’s quicker than 409
Betty’s cleaning’ house for the very last time
Betty’s bein’ bad
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5