Just read between the lines...

Red Text is the real story hiding between the lines.
Violet Text is a notable quote from a specific blogger.
Blue Text is my own personal commentary.
Gold Text is a link to the original sources.

One word of advice I would offer to everyone who reads this blog;

....Each and every day, take just a moment of your precious time to pray for Peace and Justice.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Just how desperate are the Republicans for Clinton to be Candidate in November?

Thanks once again to Brad Friedman at Bradblog, who has covered the election fraud issue(s) exhaustively.

As promised, in my long, and much-updated original piece from last night, first expressing concerns and asking questions about the NH results, folks today have been looking at the precinct numbers to compare the difference between those which "counted" ballots on Diebold op-scan systems (for about 80% of NH's voters), versus those that still hand-count ballots in the Granite State (about 20% of the votes).
Ben Moseley of The Contrarian, most succinctly covers what other folks have found as well today. Namely, a 7 point overall bump for Clinton over Obama where the machines were used instead of hand-counts...
I just spent the last two hours putting together a spreadsheet of the Democratic results of the NH primary for each town with almost all but a few towns reporting, and the results were somewhat surprising....I say "somewhat" because some people will say this entirely foreseeable. What the informal statistics show is that Hillary Clinton received a 4.5% boost in towns using Diebold voting machines compared to towns that didn't. Meanwhile, Obama was hurt in these towns showing a 2.5% decrease in the Diebold towns.
Moseley responsibly notes, however, that there could well be other reasons for Clinton's popularity in areas where Diebold's machines are used, in lieu of actually counting ballots. For example, hand-counting in NH is generally done in the more rural areas and smaller precincts. Perhaps Obama is more popular, or Clinton less, in such areas for any number of reasons. (Unless I miss my guess, Edwards should have been the strongman in the rural aras, like he was in Iowa...)
The comparisons are only anecdotally useful for that reason. However, had the hand-counted results matched up similarly to those in Diebold areas, it might well have been a sign that there was little to worry about. (Even if I personally think not counting ballots is always something to worry about. But that's just me, one of those whacky pro-Democracy fellers, I guess.)
Moseley a blogger and political science student from American University, writes about Clinton's Diebold bump: "Does this show election fraud? Right now I'm not sure, but the possibility definitely remains and must not be taken off the table."
Then, in two updates, he offers a coupla more eye-brow raisers...

Update: Some more statistics from the data shows that Obama in non-Diebold towns garnering 38.7% of the vote to Clinton's 36.2%. The results in Diebold towns show the exact opposite: Clinton with 40.7% of the vote and Obama with 36.2%. Not only are the positions swapped but the informal statistics have the second place candidate holding 36.2% in both cases, which could easily be a pure coincidence. What doesn't make a lot of sense to me right now and this could be a mathematical mistake on my part is where Clinton got the extra 2% of votes in Diebold towns. All the other numbers almost exact for every candidate, even Edwards who recieved 17% of the vote in Diebold towns compared to 17.6% in non-Diebold towns. That still doesn't make up for the extra 2% vote Clinton is receiving when she leads in certain towns compared to when Obama has the lead.
Update II: Another thing to keep in mind when looking at these statistics is that the Diebold machines create a 7 point difference (+4.5 for Clinton, -2.5 for Obama) which is exactly what the polls had been predicting. Again, I'm not explicitly stating there has been fraud, but in a supposed democracy such as ours, skepticism is a virtue and necessity.
"In a supposed democracy such as ours, skepticism is a virtue and necessity."
Bless you, Mr. Moseley. (Ditto from JEP)For that, and for your good work on the numbers, you win the BRAD BLOG Patriot of the Week Award (if we had one.)
Here were my comments on Brad's posting:
Doesn't Rove still command a small cadre of fake Democrats in New Hampshire, the same ones he used to caller-ID those Democratic call centers and jam them?
So, considering that Rove knows something the rest of us as yet don't (Hillary's "fatal flaw" was never articulated, but it was referenced by the Rovian, so we might assume it's a trump card held close for the general election)is it any wonder they might make certain Hillary gets the nomination, so they can skewer her with their dirty little secret(s) when the time comes?
And what of the billion-dollar campaign projections that a New Hampshire loss for Clinton would have halved? Those media moguls aren't about to give this newest Diebold deception any coverage, Matthews keeps questioning the results, but no one seems to want to make this Diebold connection on the MSM.
And who benefits most from a continuation of Clinton's campaign?
1. The Republicans who think they have some dirt that will bury her in the general, or

2. the MSM that wants that easy-money campaign advertising revenue?
Hillary may not even know what happened, but no doubt someone on her staff does.
Something's rotten in New Hampshire this time around.
Once again...

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]... JEP said on 1/10/2008 @ 8:16 am PT...
This couldn't happen in Iowa, where you must have the courage to show yourself and your loyalties, in person, physical, a regular live body count, up front, no secrets, no machines to bend the results.
Maybe Iowa's got a good thing going after all.

1 comment:

James Bordonaro said...

re: your comment about caucuses and people having to stand up...I'm sure you'll be attending the caucus and I (as an Obama supporter) appreciate you recommending him as your 2nd choice after Edwards. I'm also hoping you'll sign me up for your first dist. blog. I'd like to meet you in the near future. I live in emporia but find myself in central KS often lately, e.g. last Sat. in Salina for caucus training with Shirley Jacques, Tues. in El Dorado to meet Dems at Obama Rally and then Thurs. in Hays for Ellis Co. Dems award banquet with Gov. Sebelius. I've actually been to Lindsborg in summer 06 with my mom (who lives in VT) but it was a Monday and many stores were closed so we didn't get to see much.