Under and Over Analyzing New Hampshire

-

My New America Foundation colleague and fellow blogger Mark Schmitt and I discuss the New Hampshire primary results. The following clip runs about eight minutes.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

7 comments on “Under and Over Analyzing New Hampshire

  1. EA says:

    If I were a candidate I’d be more than just pissed. The lack of outcry by candidates re: this terrifying weakness in the entire democratic process must reflect one or more of:
    1. The press doesn’t cover candidates’ outcries
    2. The candidates don’t really see it as a significant problem (come out in the wash perspective)
    #2 above comes with some other assumptions:
    A. The confidence in elections by most voters is not shaken by these revelations (in eyes of candidates)
    B. Elections are more show than substance. The behind-the-scenes jockeying for support is more important and the elections turn out to be just rough guides to tip the key backers in the right direction. In other words, the EXACT results don’t matter.
    2B is the only way I can reconcile that the outcry is not being made by candidates.

    Reply

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Amazing, isn’t it? In Sutton, there is IRREFUTABLE evidence of fraud, and the press is simply ignoring it. Granted, it was a small number of votes, but how small is the number really? In Sutton, it is a small bloc of voters, so the fraud would naturally involve a small number of votes. And, in such a small community, it follows that fraud would be harder to perpetrate without detection than it would be in one of our urban areas.
    One of the most despicable actions of the Republicans was consigning Conyers to some small basement anteroom when he attempted to investigate compelling evidence of vote fraud. ALL Americans were betrayed, not just Democrats. But even more despicable, more heinious, was the failure of these fucking cowards on the left to support Conyers’ efforts. Where was this crone Hillary when Conyers was working to protect our voices? Where was this media created air bag Obama? Edwards? All absent, too worried about their own ambitions to actually work in the people’s best interests.
    We can ignore this issue all we want. But the REALITY is that our elections are untrustworthy, and quite probably prone to widespread fraud. The machines that tabulate our votes are not tamper proof, and the companies that manufacture and maintain these machines have shown they will lie, perjure, and sidestep the truth to avoid having to make these machines secure and tamper proof. Further, the owners of these companies have been shown to have political alliances that constitute a serious conflict of interest, and are a threat to the integrity of our electoral process.
    Without our vote, we ain’t got shit. And I dare anyone to name one single mainstream Presidential candidate that has done anything to secure our vote. Just one.

    Reply

  3. pauline says:

    Hey, Steve, is this msm enough for you and this over analyzing New Hampshire?
    imo, all the DC policy talk and discussion on TWN doesn’t mean horse manure if e-voting machines don’t yield reliable results.
    ***********
    Hoisting a few red flags about the elections
    By ROBERT C. KOEHLER
    Tribune Media Services
    January 10, 2008
    As the breathless sports coverage of the presidential primaries bursts around me this morning, I’m doing my best to resist surrendering to the contrived drama about “comeback kids” and the flying shrapnel of numbers and hold onto my troubled skepticism about the electoral process, or at least most of it.
    First of all, before we get too enthusiastic about feminist solidarity or wax knowingly about New Hampshire Democrats’ traditional soft-heartedness toward the Clinton family, let’s ponder yet again the possibility of tainted results, which is such an unfun prospect most of the media can’t bear to remember that all the problems we’ve had with electronic voting machines — and Diebold machines in particular, which dominate New Hampshire polling places — remain unsolved.
    Did the Hillary campaign really defy the pollsters? She had been trailing Barack Obama by 13 percentage points, 42 to 29, in a recent Zogby poll, as election watchdog Brad Friedman pointed out. And the weekend’s “rapturous packed rallies for Mr. Obama,” as the New York Times put it, “suggested Mrs. Clinton was in dire shape.”
    So when she emerged from the Tuesday primary with an 8,000-vote and 3-percentage-point victory over Obama, perhaps — considering the notorious unreliability, not to mention hackability, of Diebold machines — the media might have hoisted a few red flags in the coverage, rather than immediately chalk the results up to Clinton’s tears and voter unpredictability. (Oh, if only more reporters considered red flags patriotic.)
    The fact is, whatever actually happened in New Hampshire voting booths on Tuesday, our elections are horrifically insecure. For instance, Bev Harris, of the highly respected voting watchdog organization Black Box Voting, recently wrote that the Diebold 1.94w optical scan machines used in some 55 percent of New Hampshire precincts (representing more than 80 percent of the state’s voters) are “the exact same make, model and version hacked in the Black Box Voting project in Leon County (Florida)” a few years ago. They haven’t been upgraded; the security problems haven’t been fixed.
    National, or at least media, denial about this situation doesn’t say much for the strength of our democracy.
    The other recent chill I felt over the state of that democracy was symbolized by the gleeful thumbs up that ABC president David Westin gave his staff 20 minutes before airtime for Saturday’s candidate debate, when word came in that a judge had ruled against Dennis Kucinich’s last-minute lawsuit to gain inclusion in the debate. The staff cheered, the Hollywood Reporter noted with barely concealed satisfaction, as though to say: A-list celebrities only, Dennis!
    The exclusion of Kucinich from the debates, and the mainstream media’s indifference to and/or tacit approval thereof, strikes me as part of the same phenomenon as their inability to incorporate news of ongoing voting-machine insecurity into actual election coverage.
    The unacknowledged backstory of the election process, you might say, is that it’s primarily entertainment; and downer stuff like unreliable numbers or a short, pedestrian candidate who insists on talking about real — and possibly unpleasant — issues just don’t belong in the package presented to the public. No grit, please! No matter the current administration has trashed the Constitution, dragged us into a disastrous war, abandoned New Orleans, blown national security and made torture fashionable, this election is about . . . feelings, personal drama.
    So with Kucinich out of the debates and out of mainstream consciousness, the simmering concerns of far more than 1 percent of the population are also excluded from these debates that, after all, are about the nation’s and the world’s future. I was dreading the onset of the primary season because I knew it would not be what it affected to be: something, uh, related to reality.
    Thus impeachment, that unpleasant topic, is not something any of the top-tier, media-vetted Democratic candidates will be talking about, no matter that it has far more support among the electorate than the impeachment of Hillary’s husband ever did. And the Iraq war itself is reduced to a yes or no question, with no discussion of the bloated U.S. defense budget on the table, or the role of aggressive neocon-style militarism in our national security. Westin’s thumbs up signaled media exclusion of all such matters from the national debate.
    That said, I acknowledge taking wary heart in Obama’s remarkable road to national prominence and (hypothesizing fair elections) his reasonable shot at the Democratic presidential nomination. He is energizing African-Americans and many other disaffected voters, and just maybe, as he ascends to the highest levels of power, he really intends to represent them.
    see —
    http://commonwonders.com/archives/col429.htm

    Reply

  4. liz says:

    South Carolina uses ES&S voting machines. This company was founded by the brother of Diebold. There is no paper trail from our machines.
    If you listen to the people of South Carolina, there is no front runner Republican. McCain is endorsed by Lindsey Graham, who people in this state are mighty sick of, especially after calling all of us biggots in the immigration fight.Jim DeMint supports Romney.
    If you note the yard signs and banners on businesses, you will already know that Ron Paul has huge support in South Carolina. His yard signs outnumber all other candidates 8 to 1.
    The African American community and the Gay community appear to support Hillary.
    But it’s those machines, not the polls that should concern every registered voter in America. What was it about Bush and the polls in his sham of an election? Were the polls not wrong for the first time in history then? Did Hillary take a lesson or borrow from that playbook and where is KARL ROVE these days?

    Reply

  5. dvmx says:

    It does look like there’s a possibility of shenanigans in this outcome.. the last minute reversal, polls unanimously wrong, on the ground observers flummoxed, and especially, different outcomes depending on whether Diebold machines or paper ballots were used.
    Amnesiac America! This would not be the first time!
    Bears at least some investigation. Probably only the Paulites will follow up.
    “A republic, if you can keep it.” said Franklin. At this rate we might give it away without even knowing it.

    Reply

  6. daniel says:

    Unverifiable vote results that are easily manipulated? Who’d a thunk it?
    Check out this Bradblog post about the New Hampshire primary…guess what kind of machines they used? Diebold! And the final tally, courtesy of Diebold, was vastly different than the polls done hours before the vote.
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Below is an important link to monitor as this election cycle runs its course. If you monitor the site daily, you will be astounded at the number of voting “irregularities” Bev Harris uncovers, and be appalled at the ease with which the Diebold machines can be hacked and compromised. Also, the apparent widespread disregard that many election officials and voting machine company employees have for the law is truly awe inspiring.
    http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
    Heck, its a lotta fun getting into the party atmosphere and acting as if this charade is credible, debating the attributes and pitfalls of the various candidates. Why heck, with just a little imagination and fantacizing, one can even convince himself that the people still have a voice, and that all the questionable results are just “anomalies”, misinterpreted by a bunch of wackjob conspiracy theorists.
    And gee, the Ron Paul votes in Sutton were just accidentally overlooked. No big deal, unless, of course, you’re one of the people that cast a vote for Paul. But hey, he’s justa kook anyway, who needs to count votes cast for him? Screw the people that wanna vote for someone that isn’t a Fox News creation. What the hells a matter with them anyway, do they think they live in a democracy or something?
    So, considering that the vast majority of Americans do not support the Iraq “war”, don’t be suprised when a hawk is “elected” to the Oval Office and our presence in Iraq is extended indefinately. Its just an “anomaly”.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *