Behold a pale horse:and his name that sat on him was Diebold,and Hell followed with h

[Weirddave]

And so it begins (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_080109_new_hampshire_electi.htm)


If you read the story, it's a link to a left leaning blog that suggests that Hillary stole the New Hampshire primary from Obama by defrauding the Diebold machines. Let me get this out of the way right up front: Those machines need to be done away with (or modified to give a paper trail) across the board. I don't think I've ever met anyone who wasn't a Diebold salesman who didn't agree with that. No, aside from that, this raises several questions with me:

#1. Is this now the way elections are going to go? If your candidate doesn't win a close race, or loses when he had been projected to win, are the cries "The other guy cheeted" going to ring out across the land? How depressing.

#2. This time it's Democrat versus Democrat. Right now it's just a rumbling across the blogsphere, but if this grows into a big story with accusations and counter accusations flying from the camp of one front runner to another, will that have a negative effect on the chances of a Democrat winning in the fall? I can see two ways that this might happen: #1, Such sure to be bitter political infighting leaves undecided voters with a bad taste in their mouth, turning them away from whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general election, or #2, what I call The Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome. Real Republican voter fraud happens in the general election (and I know that there are those of you who believe that 'Pubbies cheat as a matter of course. I've haven't seen proof of that yet, but for those of you who do believe that, this is a very bad scenario indeed) and complaints from the Democrats get dismissed by the general public as "What garbage, they've been saying that about every election since January".

[ElvisL1ves]

Hey, Kucinich, you finally found people to pay attention to you! :D

Just FTR, all votes in NH have a paper trail.

[Weirddave]

Damn, it truncated my thread title. Heh, good thing I didn't try to use the quote about the first horse, the one that is generally regarded as the Antichrist or "Conquest", symbolizing a non-violent rise to power. It would be more appropriate considering the thread subject, buy John didn't see fit to tell his story in an easily identifiable sound bite.

2And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

No place to stick the name "Diebold" in there. ;)

[Sage Rat]

Possible, I suppose. But it seems just as possible, if not more likely, that the polls were poorly taken and so were slanted a particular way, that the "crying" thing shifted a decent portion of people to her side, or that when it actually came to voting time, more people thought she was more electable than Obama even if they liked him better. Possibly all three.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The suspicions are not that Hillary was behind it but that the Republicans (who control Diebold) fear Obama more in a general election than Hillary. I wish I could dismiss it a a crazy theory but there's too much smoke around these fucking machines to say there's no fire.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Possible, I suppose. But it seems just as possible, if not more likely, that the polls were poorly taken and so were slanted a particular way, that the "crying" thing shifted a decent portion of people to her side, or that when it actually came to voting time, more people thought she was more electable than Obama even if they liked him better. Possibly all three.
Funny how exit polls were never once wrong until Diebold. Funny how they're always wrong in the way that best benefits the GOP.

[Sage Rat]

Funny how exit polls were never once wrong until Diebold. Funny how they're always wrong in the way that best benefits the GOP.
From everything I know, the GOP thinks that they have either of those two beat, and would much more prefer them to candidates like Edwards or Richardson (though he bailed.) Personally, I'd guess that she has the greater ability to win the presidential election of the two since she's more centrist and it's the swing voters you need to pull in during the next election since no democrat is going to even consider switching sides regardless of whether they dislike their candidate or not.

[Blalron]

Personally, I'd guess that she has the greater ability to win the presidential election of the two since she's more centrist and it's the swing voters you need to pull in during the next election since no democrat is going to even consider switching sides regardless of whether they dislike their candidate or not.

Even though Hillary is further to the center than Obama, she seems to be more hated by conservatives. I think unconcious sexism has a lot to do with it. But nonetheless, Hillary Haters will turn up in droves and might counteract her appeal to centrists. Obama is probably a safer bet in the general election.

[Sage Rat]

Even though Hillary is further to the center than Obama, she seems to be more hated by conservatives. I think unconcious sexism has a lot to do with it. But nonetheless, Hillary Haters will turn up in droves and might counteract her appeal to centrists. Obama is probably a safer bet in the general election.
The Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry elections seemed to fairly well proove that when no one likes either candidate you're going to get darn close to 50-50% vote for either side, which fairly well shows that the number of liberals and the number of conservatives is, essentially, equal. The dual party system and evolutionary processes have created equally balanced central beliefs for each group in terms of voter base.

Assuming that 40% of the population is liberal and 40% conservative, and liberals will all vote for the party and so will all the conservatives, that still doesn't hurt you any if the remaining 20% swing your way. Trying to win the other side over is stupid when you're coming into a year where everyone is going to really be out voting their party no matter what. Bush really polarised politics over the last eight years.

And remember that Obama is black, muslim (sworn in on the Koran), his name contains Hussein and is one letter off from a mass murderer of particular note, and is more liberal than his competitor. All Hillary has to get over, in the eyes of the centrists, is that she didn't get a divorce when her husband had an affair.

[Magiver]

And so it begins (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_080109_new_hampshire_electi.htm)


If you read the story, it's a link to a left leaning blog that suggests that Hillary stole the New Hampshire primary from Obama by defrauding the Diebold machines. Let me get this out of the way right up front: Those machines need to be done away with (or modified to give a paper trail) across the board. Interesting controversy. Those machines replaced the reliable punch cards in Ohio, which already provided a paper trail. The same people who were hysterical about getting rid of the punch cards want to get rid of the new machines. They want a piece of paper that people can point to and fill in with a marking device (thus providing a hard copy of the transaction). This is what we had before with the reliable punch cards. I hope they didn't throw the old machines out. Maybe we can get them back. They were so simple to use.

[Magiver]

really, is that she didn't get a divorce when her husband had an affair.An affair? Make that "affairs".

[Sage Rat]

And remember that Obama is black, muslim (sworn in on the Koran), his name contains Hussein and is one letter off from a mass murderer of particular note, and is more liberal than his competitor. All Hillary has to get over, in the eyes of the centrists, is that she didn't get a divorce when her husband had an affair.
Missed edit window: Obama also has no experience or track record. Before running for President, Hillary and Schwarzeneggar were the two people you heard about as actually being out doing stuff in their new positions for their constituency.

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

And remember that Obama is black, muslim (sworn in on the Koran), his name contains Hussein and is one letter off from a mass murderer of particular note, and is more liberal than his competitor. All Hillary has to get over, in the eyes of the centrists, is that she didn't get a divorce when her husband had an affair.

Obama is a not a Muslim any longer. He is a Christian. He was not sworn in on the Koran. The only federal elected official I am aware of that was sworn in on the Koran was Keith Ellison of Minnesota's 5th district.

[Tuckerfan]

Can I just say that I hate the wankers who cry "Fraud!" when their candidate of choice loses? In this case, it's especially stupid because it's far from certain who the Democratic nominee will be at this point. I've heard claims that the polling stopped the day before the NH primary, and that this is why the predictions of an Obama sweep were wrong. This is a non-issue and should really just be allowed to die quietly, as it solves nothing. I mean, let's face it, if Karl Rove suddenly confessed that he somehow knew ahead of time that the 2000 election would hinge on Florida (and I'd like to point out that had Gore won his home state of TN, Florida would have meant diddly if it went for Bush) and he rigged the election there so Bush would win, what would it change, exactly? 9/11 still would have happened, and we'd still be in Iraq. Yeah, Bush & Co. might get some jail time, but are you willing to bet the farm on that? It seems more likely that someone would wind up taking the fall like Scooter did and that the next President would pardon Bush "for the good of the country." :rolleyes:

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Obama is a not a Muslim any longer. He is a Christian. He was not sworn in on the Koran. The only federal elected official I am aware of that was sworn in on the Koran was Keith Ellison of Minnesota's 5th district.

Sorry, I misstated something. Obama was never a Muslim.

[Bricker]

Funny how exit polls were never once wrong until Diebold.

What is the "Bradley effect?"

Who is "Dewey?"

[Sage Rat]

Sorry, I misstated something. Obama was never a Muslim.
Ahah. Shows me for not fact checking. *having now fact checked (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp)*

[Bryan Ekers]

Can I just say that I hate the wankers who cry "Fraud!" when their candidate of choice loses? In this case, it's especially stupid because it's far from certain who the Democratic nominee will be at this point.
It's not just embittered Democrat boosters whose candidate lost; it's in the Republican interest to help along any rumour that suggest a Dem candidate (any of them) used fraud of some kind, because it calls into question the validity of the eventual nomination. In fact, if the Dem race is a close Clinton/Obama match right to the convention, that's gold because whoever wins can be smeared as benefiting from subtle chicanery. If the Repubs pick their man early on, he can go right to the debates talking about how his support is untainted by even the appearance of impropriety.

The wankers are useful idiots doing exactly what the Republicans want.

[ElvisL1ves]

What is the "Bradley effect?"

Who is "Dewey?"Neither have anything to do with exit polls, friend. But nice try, though.

The Bradley Effect is also called the Wilder Effect, something you may be more familiar with.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

What is the "Bradley effect?"

Who is "Dewey?"
Those weren't based on exit polls. Exit ppolls are extremely accurate. Exit polls are how we monitor the legitimacy of elections of other countries. Dick Morris, who has been an official observer of some South American elections and who is an expert on the matter, said that he had never seen an exit poll get it wrong before Diebold. We know for a fact that the diebold machines are hackable and unreliable. We know for a fact that the company is owned an controlled by partisan Republicans. We know for a fact that the GOP refuses to allow paper trails or any means to verify the numbers.

I've never bought into any conspiracy in my life Diebold makes me wonder a lot.

[Spoke]

Georgia has Diebold machines with no paper trail, and Obama and Huckabee are leading in the polls here.

It will be interesting to see how things turn out.

[BrainGlutton]

As far as we know, has anyone ever before even tried to rig a primary?

[Marley23]

Funny how exit polls were never once wrong until Diebold. Funny how they're always wrong in the way that best benefits the GOP.
In New Hampshire, the pre-election polls were wrong. I have not heard anyone say the exit polls were wrong. Absent better evidence, surprising as New Hampshire was, I think the undecided voters just went for Clinton.

[RTFirefly]

#1. Is this now the way elections are going to go? If your candidate doesn't win a close race, or loses when he had been projected to win, are the cries "The other guy cheeted" going to ring out across the land? How depressing. How many blogs are there in the world?

I mean, seriously, some lefty blog I've never heard of yelled "Diebold!" BFD.

#2. This time it's Democrat versus Democrat. No, it's some nobody with a blog versus...the handful of people who care sufficiently about what he says to bother to disagree.

Guess that means it's this loon versus Weirddave. I'm on your side on this one, guy - but is it really worth the effort?

BTW, longtime Great Orange Satan frontpager DHinMI debunked this Diebold shit on Wednesday morning (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/02623/2264). If you're looking for a site that speaks for a big chunk of the lefty blogosphere, that's as good as it gets.

[John Mace]

I'm not inclined to believe some blog when there isn't any evidence that Obama, or anyone on his staff, has made an issue of this. Or did I miss something where they did? The explanations that "the GOP" (as if it were a monolithic thing) has picked which candidate "it" wants to run against is pretty laughable, and the rest of the argument seems to go like: Well, they probably want this and they could do this, therefore they must have done this.

[foolsguinea]

I watched the Washington chatter shows this week, & was struck by how no one considered that the multiple polls were right & the official results wrong. That's how they get away with it.

[Marley23]

I'll ask this again - was there any difference between the final results and the exit polls? I've never heard anybody say before that pre-election polls, which are NOT the same thing as exit polls, were a cast-iron predictor of what was going to happen when people actually voted.

[ElvisL1ves]

In New Hampshire, the pre-election polls were wrong. I have not heard anyone say the exit polls were wrong.Quite the opposite. CNN's exit polls, for instance, were dead on. The most likely interpretation is that there was indeed a late surge to Clinton among independents.

In fact, the only statistically-significant disrepancies between exit polls and actual votes have been in the electronically-voting areas of Florida and Ohio in the 2000 presidential election. Anybody with a grounding in math knows the most probable inferencesto draw.

[Spoke]

Exit polls or no, experience has taught me to be leery of Diebold-- experience in the form of the 2002 governor's race. In Georgia, where we have no paper trail, Democrat Roy Barnes went from being ahead of Republican Sonny Perdue 48% to 39% in pre-election polls to losing to Perdue 52% to 45% according to Diebold's machines.

Which is why I am very curious as to what will happen in Georgia's primary elections.

[Napier]

I hate to say this, because I don't know how to check my memory, but here's my recollection of what I saw as I watched the New Hampshire primary coverage on MSNBC with Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. They had red and blue boxes with various results appearing on the bottom left of the screen. Early on in the broadcast, the boxes were marked "Exit Polls" and were showing a lead of about 10 to 12 points favoring Obama over Clinton. Then, pretty early, maybe a few minutes after 8:00 PM (when the polls closed), they started showing actual counted election results, which showed a point or two or three advantage for Clinton over Obama, and also said something like "1% Reported", indicating that only a small fraction of the results were included so far. I heard somebody comment that there were more small rural areas reporting their results, and that Obama would probably enjoy more advantage in the larger urban areas, so this was a possible reason why the early reporting disagreed with exit poling. However, the Clinton advantage never went away. By the time the reporting reached around 1.5% or 2%, they stopped displaying the "Exit Poll" data boxes.

So, help me out - can anybody remember whether this broadcast was displaying "exit poll" results, and what they said?

[Acsenray]

Obama is a not a Muslim any longer. He is a Christian. He was not sworn in on the Koran. The only federal elected official I am aware of that was sworn in on the Koran was Keith Ellison of Minnesota's 5th district.

I think Sage Rat is whooshing.

[Baldwin]

In New Hampshire, the pre-election polls were wrong. I have not heard anyone say the exit polls were wrong. Absent better evidence, surprising as New Hampshire was, I think the undecided voters just went for Clinton.Well, the NPR News Blog (http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/kucinich_calls_for_recount_in_1.html) reports that the exit polls matched the reported vote. Also (from the article):Scanlan said that New Hampshire's use of electronic voting machines is different than states like Ohio or Florida. The electronic machines are not linked, and all the electronic votes are backed by paper ballots.I wish it were like that in Georgia.

So, it seems more likely to me that people changed their minds and voted differently than they had polled. Why? Who knows; maybe it was Clinton's perfectly-timed display of human emotion; maybe they just had second thoughts.

[MaxTheVool]

Interesting controversy. Those machines replaced the reliable punch cards in Ohio, which already provided a paper trail. The same people who were hysterical about getting rid of the punch cards want to get rid of the new machines. They want a piece of paper that people can point to and fill in with a marking device (thus providing a hard copy of the transaction). This is what we had before with the reliable punch cards. I hope they didn't throw the old machines out. Maybe we can get them back. They were so simple to use.

(cough) dangling chads (cough)

A good solution, which at least some places have, is a machine with an electronic interface which then prints out an easily-human-verifiable paper receipt, which is presented (behind glass, so it can't be tampered with) to the voter, who verifies it before finalizing the vote. Any necessary recounts can be done using these paper printouts. Or something along those lines.

California has scantron-y things, which seem to work pretty well, although depending on precisely how the ballot is printed, they might be susceptible to butterfly-ballot-esque shenanigans.

[Fear Itself]

In New Hampshire, the pre-election polls were wrong. Not really (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jan13.html):

Candidate Poll avg. Final

Hillary Clinton 29.8% 39.1%
Barack Obama 36.7% 36.4%
John Edwards 18.8% 16.9%
Total 85.3% 92.4% The polls hit Obama's percentage nearly spot on. They were off by 0.3%, well within the margin of error of 3-4% for this kind of poll. Notice that the sum of the polls is 85.3%, meaning that about 15% were either undecided or for one of the second-tier candidates. What happened on election day was a small loss for Edwards and a big break of the undecideds for Hillary Clinton.

[tds1273]

On 'A Daily Show' following the NH primaries, they had on the main guy(sorry, I forget his name) who does the polls. At the very end of the interview he and Stewart raised an interesting point only to leave it hanging at the commercial break. How is it that the poll/results for the Democrats were so very wrong, but the Republican results were exactly what the polls predicted they would be? The interviewee, the poller, was very candid in his replies, and seemed very much shocked by the results and the contrast.

Would any who one else saw this interview care to elaborate a little better than I can? Or help explain to me what the implications of this particular anomaly might be?

[RTFirefly]

How is it that the poll/results for the Democrats were so very wrong, but the Republican results were exactly what the polls predicted they would be? I didn't see the interview, but it doesn't matter.

The pollsters accurately predicted the Republicans, and all but one of the major Dems as well. The only thing they missed, apparently, was a last-minute swing of the undecideds towards Hillary.

[Weirddave]

How many blogs are there in the world?

I mean, seriously, some lefty blog I've never heard of yelled "Diebold!" BFD.

No, it's some nobody with a blog versus...the handful of people who care sufficiently about what he says to bother to disagree.

Guess that means it's this loon versus Weirddave. I'm on your side on this one, guy - but is it really worth the effort?

BTW, longtime Great Orange Satan frontpager DHinMI debunked this Diebold shit on Wednesday morning (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/02623/2264). If you're looking for a site that speaks for a big chunk of the lefty blogosphere, that's as good as it gets.
Of course, it's easy to dismiss as simply coming from the fringe of the fringe, but now it's in Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573) (site motto: the best website Soros' money can buy), and the quoted source is "Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe". So, is this still the province of the black helicopter boys or is there something more to it?

[RTFirefly]

Of course, it's easy to dismiss as simply coming from the fringe of the fringe, but now it's in Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573)True, in the sense that it's in a Kos diarist's diary. IOW, it's 'in Daily Kos' in the same way that you could register a username there and post a diary saying the same things.

Diarists on DKos speak only for themselves.

Haven't we covered this ground about a zillion times on this board?

(site motto: the best website Soros' money can buy),Cite, please. (Speaking of rumors that seem to refuse to die.)
and the quoted source is "Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe".And what's he being quoted on?

Oh, something entirely different. It's about problems in Nevada, and from the quote at the link, there's no indication that any of them involved voting machines - Diebold's, or anybody else's; touch-screen machines, or any other type.

Did you even read your own cite?

So, is this still the province of the black helicopter boys or is there something more to it? So far, no evidence has been produced in this thread that anyone of more stature than the black helicopter boys is raising this issue.

[Weirddave]

Oh, something entirely different. It's about problems in Nevada, and from the quote at the link, there's no indication that any of them involved voting machines - Diebold's, or anybody else's; touch-screen machines, or any other type.

Did you even read your own cite?


Voter fraud is voter fraud. The method is unimportant, but this response is so typically you "Oh, you were talking about Diebold machines before, this doesn't involve them so it's not related". Rather than admit possible wrongdoing on the part of any Dems, you prevaricate, deny and change the subject. BTW, now the story is in The Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/20/after_nevada_caucuses_charges_1.html)*. Is it still a non-issue confined to the lunatic fringe?




*Here, I'll save you the trouble of typing, you can just C&P this: "That's just a WP blog, it doesn't mean anything. *whine*"

[gonzomax]

http://www.bradblog.com/ The Brad Blog has followed Diebolds problems for years. When you scroll down you see in New Hampshire
Diebold Clinton 683 recount 619
Edwards 255 217
Obama 404 365
They are , I thought ,supposed to provide an accurate count. If they can not do that what good are they.
Bradblog has been following this story for years.

[RTFirefly]

Voter fraud is voter fraud. The method is unimportant, but this response is so typically you "Oh, you were talking about Diebold machines before, this doesn't involve them so it's not related". Rather than admit possible wrongdoing on the part of any Dems, you prevaricate, deny and change the subject. Ah, so the thread title and OP mean nothing (my bad for assuming otherwise), and what the subject of this thread really is, is any alleged "possible wrongdoing on the part of any Dems."

You've got me there. I have to agree with you 100% - there has indeed been wrongdoing on the part of Dems.