Dave, I think you're almost 100% wrong here on the race factor. Iowa was 95% white when they voted in record numbers, including for Obama. The difference in NH came down to women, and undecided voters who didn't answer to pollsters. The latter group, probably 5-10% of the total vote, likely made their voting decision in the last 24-72 hours.

The only voting trend that makes sense from a racial demographic is the over-40 voters who voted for Clinton over Obama. The elder whites voting for Hillary instead of the young African-American might be a plausible explanation for some of the voting total, but still hard to prove.

But you have to realize that Obama still got over 102,000 votes, more than any other democrat or republican with the exception of Hillary who got 110,000 votes at last count. It's pretty historic accomplishment for both of them, actually.

Also, unlike in Iowa, Clinton got a lot of the women voters this time, and the independent vote from what I hear was split something like 4 in 10 (40%) for both parties, so it was a white wash.

Race will be a factor in this election, no doubt about it, but it will be hard to figure out how much of a factor. (Exit pollsters, as far as I know aren't going to ask if you voted for someone based on the color of their skin)

I can tell you though, and feel free to disagree, that there might be a backlash waiting for republican candidates for refusing to take part in hispanic or african-american-sponsored debates.

And one other thing: Michigan is different than NH; it's getting to be more ethnically diverse than ever, with more Muslim immigrants now living side by side with the state's mix of african-americans and whites. I don't know how this will reflect on Obama's chances or any other candidate, but unlike NH, Michigan is definitely a solid blue state so look for a solid turnout and another close vote for both Hillary Clinton and Obama.

Michigan is also Romney's home state as you probably know but it's not a given he'll win there with McCain heating up again and the fact that Romney relatives haven't had much luck winning races there since George Romney was governor. So that race should be the closest republican race yet, no matter who votes. That's my best guess.

If the dems are damned for denying a close election to Obama, then, by Daves logic, the reps must be double-damned for not even having a black candidate.

Or, maybe Dave is just wrong. Again.

"Race is the most evident explanation for the disparity between all of the advance polling, the exit polls, and the actual results of the election."

Why didn't this disparity exist in lily-white Iowa?

"When push came to shove in a very white, very Democratic New England state, they chose the white woman over the black man."

#1 - There are more registered Republicans in NH than Democrats.

#2 - This is very close to suggesting that voting for someone other than Obama = "racism" ... which is utter lunacy.

"Exit polling shows further support for this trend, with older voters -- especially women over 40 -- voting heavily for Clinton and staying away from Obama in droves. Clearly that is a demographic which may be a little scared by his message of change as well as the color of his skin."

#1 - Why would evil White racists in NH be afraid to tell the truth to pollsters over the phone before voting, but have no problem telling the truth to pollsters in person after voting?

#2 - Is it possible that female voters felt sympathy for Hillary due to her very public "crying" episode, and swung in her direction at the last minute for that reason?

"The bad news for Obama is that as the primary season moves into the rust belt and the south, race may become a bigger issue because voters are older and more conservative. If he couldn't win New Hampshire with all of the kids of Dartmouth and UNH behind him, what chance does he have in Michigan or South Carolina?"

Michigan and South Carolina have a much, much larger percentage of voters who are black than either Iowa or New Hampshire.

I give your political analysis 2/10. :-/

Charlie: Iowa is a open caucus. Other people know who you are voting for. NH is a primary with the privacy of the voting booth. Probably some racism played a role, perhaps at the margins. However, the situation would be reversed if Clinton and McCain were the nominees. I think people will tell the pollsters that they are ready for a woman President but inside the polling booth they will vote for McCain, especially so in Ohio, PA and perhaps MD. Watch for these trends, because either Obama or Clinton would be the Dem nominees with the GOP nominee being white.

First of all Obama is not even on the ballot in Michigan.

Second, with all due respect to Nalle, he is way off.

This wasn't about race at all.

The reason Obama lost Nh wasn't because he's black. There are actually a couple of factors that converged to see hime lose. The first is that Hillary really did do a good job of motivating her minions up here. The second is that we in NH were told by the media that Obama was going to win huge. I think many of us, being the crusty old yankees that we are did not like that and did not really see any substance behind Obama's incessant "change" mantra.

Believe it or not not everything is about race Dave.

Dave, I think you're almost 100% wrong here on the race factor. Iowa was 95% white when they voted in record numbers, including for Obama.

Iowa didn't show anything like the kind of shift against the polls. I can't absolutely explain why it only happened in New Hampshire, but I'd guess it was the difference between a caucus and a secret ballot.

The difference in NH came down to women, and undecided voters who didn't answer to pollsters. The latter group, probably 5-10% of the total vote, likely made their voting decision in the last 24-72 hours.

Except that exit polls indicate that most voters had made up their minds more than 72 hours in advance, or at least claimed to have.

The only voting trend that makes sense from a racial demographic is the over-40 voters who voted for Clinton over Obama. The elder whites voting for Hillary instead of the young African-American might be a plausible explanation for some of the voting total, but still hard to prove.

Right, and that's exactly what I said.

But you have to realize that Obama still got over 102,000 votes, more than any other democrat or republican with the exception of Hillary who got 110,000 votes at last count. It's pretty historic accomplishment for both of them, actually.

No question that turnout was great. Could have been the result of people turning out to vote both for and against the first major black and female candidates.

Also, unlike in Iowa, Clinton got a lot of the women voters this time, and the independent vote from what I hear was split something like 4 in 10 (40%) for both parties, so it was a white wash.

An even split of independents is a victory for democrats because normally a lot more independents vote Republican.

Race will be a factor in this election, no doubt about it, but it will be hard to figure out how much of a factor. (Exit pollsters, as far as I know aren't going to ask if you voted for someone based on the color of their skin)

They ought to at least ask it, even if they're unlikely to get an honest answer. They could even ask a trick question like whether people think OTHER voters were influenced by skin color.

I can tell you though, and feel free to disagree, that there might be a backlash waiting for republican candidates for refusing to take part in hispanic or african-american-sponsored debates.

I'm not sure that that situation is as cut and dried as it appears. If I recall correctly those groups didn't offer to sponsor republican-only debates at all.

And one other thing: Michigan is different than NH; it's getting to be more ethnically diverse than ever, with more Muslim immigrants now living side by side with the state's mix of african-americans and whites. I don't know how this will reflect on Obama's chances or any other candidate, but unlike NH, Michigan is definitely a solid blue state so look for a solid turnout and another close vote for both Hillary Clinton and Obama.

The 'Dearborn' factor ought to be interesting. I bet Obama will do well there.

Michigan is also Romney's home state as you probably know but it's not a given he'll win there with McCain heating up again and the fact that Romney relatives haven't had much luck winning races there since George Romney was governor. So that race should be the closest republican race yet, no matter who votes. That's my best guess.

Mitt Romney's current politics and George Romney's politics from 30 years ago are radically different.

Dave

If the dems are damned for denying a close election to Obama, then, by Daves logic, the reps must be double-damned for not even having a black candidate.

Absolutely. The GOP has, however, had both women and black candidates in the past.

As for this year, can you say Vice President Michael Steele...

Dave

I think it is about race - in Iowa it was public voting, so people couldn't say one thing and hide and do another thing.

Also, regarding the whole 'experience' thing, it seems a bit of a smokescreen to hide one's racism under some notion of rational thinking. If people really cared about experience, they would have voted for Richardson.

Dave, I'm frankly surprised and expected more from you. What you've written here is based on little to no evidence except for a DRASTICALLY stretched and unsupported interpretation of the exit polls.

In short, you've taken an (extremely) wild guess at what happened in New Hampshire, decided that it was "the most evident explanation," and posted it here without the benefit of a single fact.

Obama and Clinton will not win Michigan--They are not on the ballot because Michigan changed their primary date. None of the front running Dem's will be there. In Michigan if you vote in the Democratic Primary and you want a Obama or Clintion the best you can do is vote "Undeclared".

As for this year, can you say Vice President Michael Steele...

And we all know how the tolerant left wing bloggers treated Michael Steel......

What was it they called him......oh yeah uncle tom, oreao cookie, little black sambo.......

I can honestly say that I have not seen or heard even one republican/conservative who opposes Obama use any racial slurs

Did anyone happen to see Chris Matthes on Tv this morning crying in his coffee because America is such a racist place?

It was priceless.

Well written, Dave. I have to confess a certain amount of racism myself. Even though I am conservative by nature I am drawn to Barack because he looks like me.

Skin color goes deep.

Brother Nalle, this is not your best analysis. Curiously for an evil right-wing nutjob, you seem to be buying right into the most lame PC racial nonsense, ie if they weren't racist more NH voters would have supported Obama. What, like there aren't any other possible reasons to not support him?

In fact, I'd argue that the racism is exactly the other way around. This guy does not even vaguely have the qualifications to actually be president. Really, the main reason that he's a contender is simply because he's black and won't pee on the carpet. Looks more to me like the racism was all the white folk in Iowa voting to prove how not-racist they are.

Also, there is the particular place and moment of this NH vote. NH voters are highly conscious of their place in the presidential process, and often act as a corrective to Iowa. NH voters knew that if Obama won their primary after his victory in the Iowa caucuses, it'd pretty much have been all over but the crying. Even some NH voters who would tend to look favorably on Obama might have figured that he needed a little speed bump before handing the nomination to this featherweight.

Dave, I'm frankly surprised and expected more from you. What you've written here is based on little to no evidence except for a DRASTICALLY stretched and unsupported interpretation of the exit polls.

In short, you've taken an (extremely) wild guess at what happened in New Hampshire, decided that it was "the most evident explanation," and posted it here without the benefit of a single fact.

Michael,

I am curious on what would constitute 'proof' to you - would it be a voter coming out and saying "Yeah, while I am telling you I voted for Obama, I actually voted for a white woman because in my heart I am scared of black men beating up old, defenseless white women.."

Exit polls are usually very reliable, especially if they are in line with pre-vote polls (as they were in this case). So it is probably one of two things -

1) Some type of vote rigging
2) Bradley effect

I think it is the latter - you take your pick...

"First of all Obama is not even on the ballot in Michigan."

Good point, Arch. From the Detroit Free Press:

Neither [Clinton or Obama] will be campaigning in Michigan for next Tuesday's Democratic primary, though Clinton remains on the ballot. Both agreed not to stump in Michigan when the state violated party rules by moving up its primary to Jan. 15 -- and, among the major candidates, both Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards took their names off the ballot.

That said, Obama's Michigan supporters have been working to get Democratic primary voters to vote uncommitted, rather than support Clinton. A significant percentage of uncommitted votes would not only potentially reserve state delegates for the party's eventual nominee -- it also could weaken Clinton nationally, given that she's the only major candidate on the ballot.

"the reps must be double-damned for not even having a black candidate."

Uh, Alan Keyes?

I don't understand why some "closet racist" would supposedly be terrified of telling an anonymous pollster that he intends on voting for someone other than Barack Obama over the telephone. There are any number of perfectly valid reasons for voting for a particular White candidate over a particular Black candidate other than racism. So why would a racist even bother to pretend to support Barack Obama? It makes no sense.

Sorry, Dave, I must say that I'm not convinced skin color is an issue here. That's one possible explanation, but another is simply that New Hampshire voters didn't like having their votes counted before primary day. Still another is that many independents thought Obama was so obviously the winner that they voted for McCain to avoid having Romney win. There are others as well.

I know that the Bradley Effect is a popular hypothesis, but the disparity between Iowa and New Hampshire suggests something else is at play, I think. Also, some polls *did* reflect a much tighter race, so it's also possible that it was just poor poll questions from companies excited about Obama!

JR Eliott,

I don't understand it either...but I think it is people wanting to be open-minded, but staying within their comfort zone when it comes to translating their words into action (especially when no one is watching what they are doing inside the voting booth)...

They probably realize they are being a bit racist but don't really want to face up to it...obviously this applies to the 'closet racist' not the rabid ones...

my goodness, the condescension around here is amazing. going late into the weekend, there were a ton of undecided voters. a lot of them broke toward the clinton camp. there were of course a lot of reasons but i seriously doubt race was on the list.

true enough, new hampshire voters don't like being led around and often vote to "send a message".

i also suspect that a fair number of people switched over and voted for mccain just to give romney a kick in the pants.

Lets say the racism dial goes from 1 to 100. I am going to say my dial is set at 33. In other words I am mildly racist. If I go into a store and see 2 store clerks, one is white and one is black, I will ask to be assisted by the black clerk because he looks like me and I am more comfortable with him. Also note I said "him". I am more comfortable speaking with another male. These traits are built in.

I can claim to be non-racist all day but I have a certain amount of racism built in because of my skin color. I have to believe there is racism built in to everyone and that Dave is right about the NH results.

Don't make me go William Raspberry on your ass!

RJ's theory:

Telephone polls that were conducted between the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary showed Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton by a comfortable margin. Most of these polls were taken on the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th of January. These telephone polls are usually conducted in the morning and afternoon. The primary election was held on the 8th of January.

Can anybody tell me something major that occurred between the afternoon of the 7th and morning of the 8th, when voting began? Something that received almost wall-to-wall coverage in the national media, so presumably saturation coverage in New Hampshire? Something that was probably the topic of discussion at dinner tables across New Hampshire Monday night, and at water coolers Tuesday morning?

I can: Hillary cried. She cried, publicly, and with cameras present. And it received massive coverage.

As Dave himself wrote: "Exit polling shows [...] older voters -- especially women over 40 -- voting heavily for Clinton and staying away from Obama in droves."

It seems pretty clear to me that this could be explained by older female Democrat voters - who identify strongly with Hillary Clinton - giving Hillary a strong "sympathy vote," which of course would not have shown up in the telephone polls because they were conducted pre-tears.

That makes a lot more sense to me than suggesting that New Hampshire Democrats are a bunch of closet Klans(wo)men because they only gave Obama 36% of their vote instead of the expected 39%, or whatever.

LOL,

It is really interesting that people assign strategic thinking to voters - "they vote to send a message"...how do voters know their message will shine through?

The reality is, as voter studies indicate, that people come out and vote from their heart not because of any strategic positioning (especially as you cannot predict what the final message will be).

In NH, it seems, this translates for many people into "voting for one of my own", and that is what they will do even if they feel sheepish/ uncomfortable saying that in public.

The surprising thing is how many people seem to deny that race is involved...ok, it may not be all race, but NO race...c'mon, don't get so defensive.

here's another one rj: the women are so pissed off at the time their husbands are spending talking about the patriots that they went to the polls and voted for a woman as a sort of power play.

ok, maybe not.

;-)

ay what if the black voters in south carolina lie to pollsters and said there were goingto vote for hillary clinton but didnt pay back is a bitch

#22 Maurice:

I appreciate the honesty of your post, and I understand what you're saying. But, if you are correct, and everyone is at least a little racist, why are we bothering to wring our hands about it? Why should White Iowans or New Hampshirites (?) feel guilty about picking a candidate of their own race? Presumably Black voters in Congressional districts that have been gerrymandered to make them a majority don't feel guilty about voting for candidates of their own race.

Or is this just some sort of racial double-standard everyone is supposed to accept, like how giving an advantage to a White person in hiring or college admissions is called "racial discrimination" and is illegal, but giving an advantage to a Black person in hiring or college admissions is called "Affirmative Action" and is actually mandated by law in many areas?

Faced with this silliness I'm speechless!

Who's silliness, Christopher?

I agree with Charlie and, for once, RJ and Arch. Dave has this curious bee in his bonnet about the "racist" Democratic Party and it's caused him to leap to a ludicrous conclusion here.

New Hampshire seems to be a pretty conservative state and it's not surprising that a lot of wavering voters would have decided at the last minute to stick with familiar Clinton territory.

As for the Democratic front runners not being on the ballot in Michigan, what about write-in votes? Is that allowed there? Anyone know?

#27

I am not wringing my hands about it. Racism is a simple fact of life and I think it is better to identify it than to deny it. Dave has correctly pointed it out. Some posters here are denying it.

I can say I'm not racist all day but when I am at the dinner party I will gravitate toward people that look like me.

Doc:

Michigan's Tuesday Democratic primary will give voters a chance to vote for Clinton, but not for key rivals Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

A squabble between state and national party officials over the state's early primary date led Obama and Edwards to withdraw their names.

Clinton faces token opposition from Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. The other name on the ballot, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, dropped out last week.

Now there is a push by Obama and Edwards partisans to urge voters to chose "uncommitted" instead of just skipping the contest.

...

Complicating things, uncommitted delegates will not be counted unless "uncommitted" tallies at least 15 percent in the primary. And state and national officials still are fighting over whether the national party will follow through on its threat of seating no Michigan delegates because it violated the party's primary calendar.

Despite extensive publicity over the ballot, Grand Rapids Clerk Terri Hegarty expects some voters will be irked when they find they cannot vote for Obama or Edwards.

They might be even more irritated when they discover they cannot write in their names.

Under state election law, candidates must file to have their names counted as write-in votes. Neither Edwards nor Obama did so.

I will join the chorus in saying that Dave's analysis is off the mark.

The shift in votes between the polls and the end results was about 5%. I'd say almost all of that consists of ambivalent people changing their minds. The question is why.

The NY Times is full of anecdotes this morning from people who say they like both candidates a lot and were undecided until the last minute. Racism implies that they were voting against someone.

The eyes-welling-in-the-diner incident is not irrelevant, but it seems far-fetched to credit it with the entire election result. Reaction was not monolithic - there was both positive and negative reaction from women, for example, and for a variety of reasons.

The other possibility is that, gasp, the polls were flawed. And that's exactly how most commentators were reading it last night.

Racism may be a factor in the general election. But Clinton voters are not the most likely pool in which to look for racists. Most Dems I know like both candidates, a lot, and experience level and electability are the main factors differentiating them.

Under state election law, candidates must file to have their names counted as write-in votes.

Doesn't that rather defeat the whole object of write-in voting?

Gasp! Of course it is not race! We are already in the era of post-racial politics. (Why do I think it is mostly white people protesting so much...?)

And I would say liberals (of which I am one), tend to be closet racists, and patronizing and couch it in more hidden ways...

"The other possibility is that, gasp, the polls were flawed. And that's exactly how most commentators were reading it last night."

The thing is, the polls were pretty accurate in the GOP race. And the polls were all pretty much showing the same thing in the Democrat race - a 10 or 12 point lead by Obama. So the Democrat polls were good on "reliability" but poor on "validity."

The question is why. I suspect the higher-than-expected (and record-breaking) turnout was a big factor, and the catalyst for that was the unseasonably warm weather.

Could it be...Global Warming caused a Hillary Clinton Presidency?

0_o

(Hey, Al Gore implied that Global Warming caused Hurricane Katrina, so the precedent for it causing enormous disasters has already been set...)

;-]

Under state election law, candidates must file to have their names counted as write-in votes.

"Doesn't that rather defeat the whole object of write-in voting?"

Well, it is Michigan, Doc. Competent or rational governance is not much of a high priority there, sad to say. :-/

BP #35

LOL! Your honesty is astonishing!

I am going to do something I have NEVER once done in these pages... agree with Nalle.

I think it is absolutely true that though they know race shouldn't be an issue, when they get in that booth and close the little curtain behind them... they still don't want to turn the country over to a black man. I have been watching this phenomenon for a bit, and I honestly expected it.

The thing I was wondering aloud about last night was this: as the race heads into the deep south, will being black be a help or hinderance? I mean, there is large black population in the south, and I would bet many who aren't active voters. Obama could turn this around and get thousands of historically unregistered voters to the polls.

or... is the south still secretly a deeply racially divided place? I don't know, because I avoid that part of the earth. Not because of blacks, but because religious nutjobs. Of course, I am in Colorado... where are all headquarteed now.

There it is Nalle, I agree! and that will probably be our last civil discourse for the year.

* as for the polling issue, I just wrote a piece two lines up on polling and why it isn't always valid.

Maurice's dinner party example is right on the money.

I don't think I'm a racist, but in those circumstances, I will do exactly the same thing.

But, is that racism (repressed or otherwise) or just seeking a comfort zone?

At a party of all white people split between Europeans, say, and Americans, I would probably gravitate (initially, at least) to the Americans.

Far be it from me to agree with RJ on...um...anything, but I'm about to agree with him a second time in one post.

I'm listening to the archived coverage last night from NPR, and one of their analysts asked voters if the Iowa results had affected their vote. A surprising number of responses was yes, and one woman said, "I felt like Hillary needed me."

Which suggests that RJ's right in indicating that she got the sympathy vote.

Dave, I think you're almost 100% wrong here on the race factor. Iowa was 95% white when they voted in record numbers, including for Obama. The difference in NH came down to women, and undecided voters who didn't answer to pollsters. The latter group, probably 5-10% of the total vote, likely made their voting decision in the last 24-72 hours.

The only voting trend that makes sense from a racial demographic is the over-40 voters who voted for Clinton over Obama. The elder whites voting for Hillary instead of the young African-American might be a plausible explanation for some of the voting total, but still hard to prove.

But you have to realize that Obama still got over 102,000 votes, more than any other democrat or republican with the exception of Hillary who got 110,000 votes at last count. It's pretty historic accomplishment for both of them, actually.

Also, unlike in Iowa, Clinton got a lot of the women voters this time, and the independent vote from what I hear was split something like 4 in 10 (40%) for both parties, so it was a white wash.

Race will be a factor in this election, no doubt about it, but it will be hard to figure out how much of a factor. (Exit pollsters, as far as I know aren't going to ask if you voted for someone based on the color of their skin)

I can tell you though, and feel free to disagree, that there might be a backlash waiting for republican candidates for refusing to take part in hispanic or african-american-sponsored debates.

And one other thing: Michigan is different than NH; it's getting to be more ethnically diverse than ever, with more Muslim immigrants now living side by side with the state's mix of african-americans and whites. I don't know how this will reflect on Obama's chances or any other candidate, but unlike NH, Michigan is definitely a solid blue state so look for a solid turnout and another close vote for both Hillary Clinton and Obama.

Michigan is also Romney's home state as you probably know but it's not a given he'll win there with McCain heating up again and the fact that Romney relatives haven't had much luck winning races there since George Romney was governor. So that race should be the closest republican race yet, no matter who votes. That's my best guess.

If voters had been able to hear the victory/concession speeches in advance yesterday, the results might have been reversed: Obama was amazing [as he often is], Clinton not so great and too angry-looking [though she had a great finish]; McCain was just embarrassing [and hey, I'm a fan], and Romney almost seemed human, unlike the smiling cyborg he has insisted on playing on TV for months now.

Don't know how or why my earlier comments were posted here twice, but whatever.

Good call to those who pointed out that Obama won't be on the Michigan ballot. I have a feeling Edwards and maybe Obama might pressure Hillary to take her name off that ballot between now and the 15th, but we'll see.

Wow. I don't know how CoComment managed to butcher that one up.

I meant to type

h t t p : / /

without the spaces...

:-/

Comparing the last RealClearPolitics average of polls to the actual results:

Obama 38.3 - actual: 37
Clinton 30.0 - actual: 39
Edwards 18.3 - actual: 17
Richardson 5.7 - actual: 5
All others [includes undecided] 7.7 - actual: 1

If these numbers mean anything, it looks like much of Clinton's 'surge' came from undecideds and 'minor' candidate supporters who decided to pick one of the front-runners. Obama actually only 'lost' a little more than 1% of the total from the polling.

On the GOP side:

McCain: 31.8; actual = 37
Romney: 28.2; actual = 32
Huckabee: 12.2; actual = 11
Giuliani: 9.3; actual = 9
Paul: 8.2; actual = 8
Thompson: 2.2; actual = 1
All others: 8.1; actual = 2?

Looks like the undecideds split evenly between the two front runners, preserving the margin from the polls.

Without passing judgment on the argument at hand, I can say--based on my extensive reporting for The Chronicle of Higher Education on voter-passed affirmative action limits and my research for my book Color and Money--this would hardly be the first time people have given the politically correct answer to pollsters and then voted differently in the booth. Most recently, pollsters predicted last fall that Michigan's Proposal 2 ban on affirmative-action preferences would fail by a substantial margin. Instead, it won easily, with 58 percent.

#48 Peter:

See comments #45 and #46.

;-]

Sorry about the URL on my last post. For the record, it's www.colorandmoney.com

I find it rather amusing that all of this talk about racism being the cause of Barrack's loss.

That being said, I would like to offer a few comments this being the 50th post, and not one
hint of the dread phrase that been ignored, not only by the author, but including
all of the previous comments. That being voter-fraud.

In my opinion, the one thing that government, both at the state and federal level must do in order to show its legitimacy is to provide for fraud-free voting, and to explain in a reasonable and rational way to the voter that her/his vote counts. This is more important than ANY other function of a free society. Unfortunately what we have today is just the oppostite of that.

Remember the Florida debacle of 2000, when thanks to Greg Palast he showed exactly how the former Secretary of State Katherine Harris and her cronies through a company that is called Choicepoint, culled thousands of legitmate voters from being able to excercise their right to vote?

Unfortunately this is only the tip of the iceberg. Again in 2000 former Secetary of state of Ohio Ken Blackwell used other tactics to further the republican Junta of Mr. Bush. There is an excellent article in the New Republic by Robert F Kennedy Jr, explaining just how this was done. An intersting side note is that both of these characters were Chairmans in their respective states of the re-election of G.W Bush. Hardly a conflict of interest. Snicker.

I no doubt may be assused of conspiracy by some of the more irrational writers on this blog, however that is exactly what happened, so I will wear the badge of conspiracy theorist proudly.

I wonder where people get the idea that their vote counts, since today under the "Help America vote" act more and more states are using computerized, hackable, paperless voting machines.

New Hampshshire is a prime example. Using Diebold voting machines that counted over 80% of the vote.

"Scientific studies of Diebold/Premier Election Solutions' voting systems have unanimously revealed security flaws in its touch-screen and optical scan voting systems. This story was covered on the same day by the New York Times (John Schwartz, Computer Voting is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say, The New York times July 24, 2003, page A12."

Exit polls are the most accurate of any types of polling in use today, and if there is a wide discrepency between the actual tally and the exit-polls, there is a very good chance that evil is afoot.

For an excellent analysis of voting fraud in general, and New Hampshire specifically, I suggest interested readers check out Bev Harris, and her excellent site blackboxvoting.org. She has worked tirelessly for years attempting to bring back accountability and fairness in our electoral system.

Yes I am a conspiracy theorist, because there are always some people who conspire to commit fraud, particularly when the people do not demand that their government show in a clear and concise fashion that their vote is counted. I suggest if government does not do this, which it has not, then the whole system is a sham.

SHAM

I particularly welcome Dave's comments as I always get a kick out of them.


signed
Paul, a conspiracy theorist

RJ and Michael nailed it. If you want to see why the votes were different from the polls, look at the last thing that happened before the voting. Clinton's outburst certainly affected her total number of votes.

Secondly, New Hampshire always has an anti-Iowa bent. The undecideds were split between Obama and McCain. They ended up choosing against the guy who won in Iowa. The other winner in Iowa came in third. Most years, NH is defensive about its position as the first real primary, but this time it was intensified, with all the other states vying for first-in-the-nation status.

Dave provides the reductio ad absurdum of his own argument. He says the results "could have been the result of people turning out to vote both for and against the first major black and female candidates." So the Clinton supporters were racists, and the Obama voters were sexists? All of them were anti-Mormon, and Kucinich lost due to the anti-elf vote.

There's no reason to see racism in these results. There was no reason to be stunned by the anti-racism of the Iowa caucus. Very little in this country revolves around race, except to the people who think about nothing but. And again, there's the slam at the South for being racist. The real prejudice in this country is pre-judging the "other" region as bigoted.

Baronius,

Unfortunately your above comment does not take into account the discrepancies in the exit polls. Mrs. Clintons' emotional outburst notwithstanding.

Y'know, when I wax all positive about how we've moved beyond racism everyone tells me I'm wrong. And here where I suggest that there's some mild racism at play many of the same people tell me I'm all wet. Well, you can't have it both ways. Or maybe you can. Point being that this sort of mild racial consciousness is natural and not all that harmful and probably tolerable, but it's still real and shouldn't be blown off when it crops up.

Oh, and Paul is just being self-indulgently nutty. No one has even begun to suggest voter fraud. And no one cares either, because these are party primaries, and the parties could pick their candidates by mud wrestling and we'd have zero say in it if that's the way they wanted it.

Dave

"In the aftermath of the New Hampshire primary one ugly truth shines through."

Dave Nalle doesn't know as much about politics as he thinks.

I wonder where people get the idea that their vote counts, since today under the "Help America vote" act more and more states are using computerized, hackable, paperless voting machines.

So by that logic, if I write a paper on my computerized, hackable, paperless laptop and e-mail it to my professor, my grade won't count?

Well Bicho, at least I'm making an effort to understand and explain. Sure I don't know it all, but I can tell an anomalous difference between poll responses and voting results when I see it.

And for the record, my premise in this article is being repeated all over the MSM today, so I don't think I'm exactly out wandering in the political wilderness here.

You may not agree, but that's as likely you being wrong as anything else.

Dave

Baronius, if you can watch the diner incident and seriously refer to it as an "outburst," you have a very interesting definition of that word. It was all pretty low-key. It got attention because HRC is nearly always so tightly controlled and non-spontaneous, and most observers saw this as an exception. [A partisan few insist without much evidence that it was deliberate trickery; this is easier to believe if you haven't watched the tape.]

And as I pointed out, the evidence is that nearly all Clinton's margin came from late deciders and fence-sitters. This isn't really all that unusual in an election - for all the people who can't make up their mind to go mostly in one direction in the end. [Although in this case, the GOP candidates split the late deciders evenly.]

Dave, wouldn't your premise seem more likely if Obama's final total were a lot lower than the polls? His poll numbers averaged 38% and he ended up with 37%. If Clinton's bump came not from Obama voters but from elsewhere, then racism isn't the first thing that comes to mind. It's still possible, just not as likely.

"in Iowa it was public voting, so people couldn't say one thing and hide and do another thing."

Unless people wore t-shirts that told what they said to pollsters, how would anyone they were doing anything different? But isn't it great to live in a country like America where you are free to not know what the hell you are talking about.

Dave, I don't remember an article about how we've moved past racism. If you wrote one, great. I could be way off base, but I really don't think racism is a problem any more. There's this fear that the other guy is a racist, or the other state or region is. But actually seeing it? It's rare, and mostly among complete jerks who aren't contributing much to society anyway. The kind of guy who gets drunk and rapes a black woman isn't going to be a Fulbright scholar once his racism clears up.

And maybe I am wrong. But the experts who were stunned by the Iowa results were clearly incorrect, so focusing on race probably won't help my analysis any.

From Reuters this afternoon:
John Zogby, who does the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll, said the 18 percent of New Hampshire voters who reported making up their minds on Tuesday "is just an unprecedented number."

...

The flood of information on the Internet can shape how voters' loyalties can shift quickly, an effect that may have been amplified among New Hampshire's undecided voters, said Susan Herbst, a polling expert at Georgia Institute of Technology.

"There's more movement and more fluidity of people and their opinion," she said. "That's a good thing. It means that people are thinking."

...

Herbst said the "public-private gap," the difference between what voters say and do, has long been tough for pollsters to gauge.

But ABC's polling director Gary Langer wrote in his blog that he doubted the wrong results would trace back to race.

He said pollsters need to look not just at factors like race but at "their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling."

"It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why," he said.

Handy - fair enough. I personally think the crying incident (or whatever you want to call it) was planned. I hate my reason for thinking so. Most of the dumb analysis of Mrs. Clinton's campaign stems from people treating the Clintons as one person. She's a very different person than he is. So that's why I hate my analysis.

Tearing up was one of Bill's tricks. He used to do this "I'm being geniune" pose, usually when he was lying. The thing that bothers me is the timing. Bill would time his bursts of "honest" emotion brilliantly. Hillary teared up at the best possible moment for her campaign, so I have trouble believing it was genuine.

Well, I said yesterday on this thread that the pollsters were going to need to take a good look at themselves. It's gratifying to see that at least some of them are.

"at least I'm making an effort to understand and explain."

No, you are making an effort to get the results to fit your worldview. You claimed racist Dems were going to cost Obama in Iowa. How did that turn out?

The most likely answer is older women rallied behind Hillary's emotional moment, which came after the polling. You claim "Clearly that is a demographic which may be a little scared by...the color of his skin" based on absolutely nothing other than your own supposition, which actually says more about how race affects your thinking and actions.

There have been plenty times where the polls get it wrong. They don't ask every single person, so it's an indicator, not a guarantee. Ask Gore about Florida and Kerry about Ohio.

"my premise in this article is being repeated all over the MSM today"

The MSM also had Obama beating Hillary by up to double digits. The MSM throws out a wide net and gets plenty of stuff wrong. They also give a lot of air time to people who are want to spin the outcome. It's not new in politics.

"You may not agree, but that's as likely you being wrong as anything else."

To paraphrase the late Luther Ingram, "If agreeing with your flawed analysis is wrong, I don't want to be right."

Dave, wouldn't your premise seem more likely if Obama's final total were a lot lower than the polls? His poll numbers averaged 38% and he ended up with 37%. If Clinton's bump came not from Obama voters but from elsewhere, then racism isn't the first thing that comes to mind. It's still possible, just not as likely.

You're forgetting the 7% or so who said that they hadn't made up their minds yet. Assuming they voted in a similar proportion to the rest of the voters then all the numbers would be slightly larger in the final count than they were in the polls.

Unless people wore t-shirts that told what they said to pollsters, how would anyone they were doing anything different?

When you answer a poll you are talking to another person. When you are in a voting booth you are alone. That's a significant difference.

But isn't it great to live in a country like America where you are free to not know what the hell you are talking about.

A wonderful privelege which you seem to exercise aggressively.

Dave

Like I said I always welcome Dave's comments.

Dave said:

"Oh, and Paul is just being self-indulgently nutty. No one has even begun to suggest voter fraud."

The video below shows LHS Associate President John Silvestro challenging Finnish computer security expert Harri Hursti, during testimony in New Hampshire, after Hursti's landmark hack of a Diebold optical-scan machine in late 2005 in Leon County, FL, as seen in Hacking Democracy. That hack is again shown in this video, courtesy of BlackBoxVoting.org. youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

Did you ever notice how instead of responding in a n intelligent and polite manner, Dave almost invariably resorts to name-calling in his responses to people that he disagrees with.

He makes not mention of my assertion in post 51 on how the government has the obligation to show that its voting system if fair and accurate. He does not respond to the in depth research that has been done by Greg Palast and Robert F Kennedy Jr. into how both of the last two presidential elections were fixed. Instead of replying to a comment that was well written, referenced, and in my opinion true, he responds in his typical way by engaging in petty name calling.

Keep em comin Dave, I always get a kick out of em.
Smirk, I frequently print out his derogatory comments and show them to my friends and family, they get a kick of em too!!

On a side note blogcritics has a policy of no personal attacks allowed, I cannot help but think this must only apply to the authors of the articles folks are commenting on. I will have to check with Eric Olsen to see if this is the case since I don't know. Its not that I mind the personal attacks, I enjoy them, however I do not like double-standards.

Those who don't trust the polls (even exit polls) are correct in doing so, IMO.

I personally know a surprisingly (to me) large number of people who claim to give false answers when asked by pollsters how they will/have voted.

Unfortunately your above comment does not take into account the discrepancies in the exit polls.

Sorry, Paul, but the actual exit polls in New Hampshire were pretty accurate, however wildly the pre-election polling may have gotten it wrong. There's a good analysis here.

There really isn't any indication of fraud and no real motivation for anyone to commit any - not this early in the campaign.

On the subject of electronic voting machines, however, I do think that there's no substitute for a good, old-fashioned, hard-copy piece of paper telling exactly how you voted.

Dave said in post 53:

"No one has even begun to suggest voter fraud."

Last time I checked I am SOMEONE. Perhaps what you meant Dave, was no one that you have deemed worthy of your personal endorsement has claimed voter fraud. Maybe you are waiting for one of the talking heads in our mainstream media to make the claim, which will never happen. Obviously to you I am not credible, perhaps you can elucidate what you meant in a clearer fashion sir. I can provide hundreds of people, including people that devote their whole lives to the electoral process to claim that there may have been voter fraud in both Iowa and New Hampshire for specific reasons. For one of these experts in this field you can hardly expect them to say that in fact there was voter fraud, unless they were privy to the inside machinations of said fraud.

Sometimes I find you are very careless with your words, perhaps you would care to comment, or at least explain what you meant by no one.

Clavos,

And how about those that trust the results sir? Particularly in reference to post 50.

I eagerly await your reply.

Dread you said:
"On the subject of electronic voting machines, however, I do think that there's no substitute for a good, old-fashioned, hard-copy piece of paper telling exactly how you voted."

Since you feel this way, as do I perhaps you could share your opinion as to why they are used. I mean obviously (smirk) those that make the decisions about the tools that we use for voting want an accurate tally too!! double smirk

What do you think?

wow, for somebody who prides himself on anchoring to "the facts", this is pretty much fact-free conjecture.

the dems should hang their collective heads in shame for shying away from a black man.

similarly, the republicans should be embarrassed that they chose mccain because they hate mormons.

i read it on the internet.

"And how about those that trust the results sir?"

You're right. As long as the government controls the election process, you'll never be able to trust the outcome.

In response to my comment, "Unless people wore t-shirts that told what they said to pollsters, how would anyone they were doing anything different?" Dave writes, "When you answer a poll you are talking to another person. When you are in a voting booth you are alone. That's a significant difference."

Thanks, but this was in response to BP's comment "in Iowa it was public voting, so people couldn't say one thing and hide and do another thing."

That's now the second time on this site where you have stated that in the Iowa caucus, they use voting booths. It still remains incorrect.

"When people were polled before they voted, they said they were going to vote for Obama. When they were in the privacy of the voting booth, they actually voted for Clinton."

Actually, if you had done some research, you would see that Obama's poll numbers stayed relatively the same. It was Clinton who surged ahead, so that statement is wrong as well.

Paul ... is there anything about which you DON'T have a conspiracy theory??

No, you are making an effort to get the results to fit your worldview.

More my pessimistic assumptions about the baseness of humanity.

You claimed racist Dems were going to cost Obama in Iowa. How did that turn out?

It turned out to be more true in New Hampshire than in Iowa. I was pleasantly surpsised in Iowa.

The most likely answer is older women rallied behind Hillary's emotional moment, which came after the polling.

Don't worry, I have an article coming about that too. I'm sure you'll be suitably outraged.

You claim "Clearly that is a demographic which may be a little scared by...the color of his skin" based on absolutely nothing other than your own supposition, which actually says more about how race affects your thinking and actions.

Supposition based on experience of human nature. I know you're taking this as some sort of partisan attack on Democrats, but that's not at all what it's about. It's about human nature and I went to some pains in the article to point out that the phenomenon likely applies to independents as much as democrats.

There have been plenty times where the polls get it wrong. They don't ask every single person, so it's an indicator, not a guarantee. Ask Gore about Florida and Kerry about Ohio.

Not asking enough people clearly isn't the problem here. It's how they asked the questions and that they didn't figure out a way to get a more meaningful response.

Dave

The video below shows LHS Associate President John Silvestro challenging Finnish computer security expert Harri Hursti, during testimony in New Hampshire, after Hursti's landmark hack of a Diebold optical-scan machine in late 2005 in Leon County, FL, as seen in Hacking Democracy.

This video has to do with a prior election. It is not any kind of claim that there was voter fraud in New Hampshire yesterday, which is what you have claimed. Show me a source that says there is actual EVIDENCE of fraud yesterday.

Did you ever notice how instead of responding in a n intelligent and polite manner, Dave almost invariably resorts to name-calling in his responses to people that he disagrees with.

Only when going over the same stupidity for the umpteenth time. It gets tedious and I do lose patience and resort to snide comments. Sorry. Come up with something new and half way believable and I'll listen.

He makes not mention of my assertion in post 51 on how the government has the obligation to show that its voting system if fair and accurate.

The primaries are not run by the government and they have no obligation to be fair and accurate.

He does not respond to the in depth research that has been done by Greg Palast and Robert F Kennedy Jr. into how both of the last two presidential elections were fixed. Instead of replying to a comment that was well written, referenced, and in my opinion true, he responds in his typical way by engaging in petty name calling.

There's nothing here to address. Their thesis is based on unprovable assumptions and mostly rests on the idea that because fraud was possible and they don't like the result then fraud must have happened. No evidence of fraud in progress on a sufficient scale to alter the results has ever been presented.

And again, this has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. Even if there was proven fraud in a past election that would NOT prove anything about this particular primary.

On a side note blogcritics has a policy of no personal attacks allowed, I cannot help but think this must only apply to the authors of the articles folks are commenting on. I will have to check with Eric Olsen to see if this is the case since I don't know. Its not that I mind the personal attacks, I enjoy them, however I do not like double-standards.

Using unflattering adjectives to describe your statements is not, in fact, a personal attack. Say something worth respecting and I'll treat you nicely. Keep spewing irrational garbage and you can expect a certain amount of derision.

Dave

Dave,

You begin your article with the statement that your supposition of racism in the NH primary is an "ugly truth." Yet later you refer to your premise as regarding "mild racism," and go on to say "that this sort of mild racial consciousness is natural and not all that harmful and probably tolerable..." So "mild racism" which you consider to be "not all that harmful and probably tolerable is also an "ugly truth?"

You are always the one here with the "proof in the pudding," the numbers guy. You like nothing better than giving the lie, or at least the inaccuracy of someone's claims by hauling out the results of some study, some poll, some numbers that prove someone wrong.

Yet you make a claim here for which there is not one iota of real evidence. Talk about "having it both ways."

Both here and in comments elsewhere, you've stated that you believe that the Democrats harbour a base of racism. The manner with which you couch this charge subtly and indirectly suggests that such racism doesn't exist amongst Republicans. You may be correct. The racism that exists amongst Republicans is far more blatant. I suppose you could give them points for honesty.

Many old line southern racist Democrats are now new line southern racist Republicans.

B-tone

Dave,

Does that mean that I can call you a NUT too? I will wait for your response before proceeding.

den·i·grate /ˈdɛnɪˌgreɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[den-i-greyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-verb (used with object), -grat·ed, -grat·ing.
1. to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate someone's character.
2. to treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage: to denigrate someone's contributions to a project.

Also can I denigrate you too? As according to the dictionary's definition you have most definitely denigrated me as well. Again I will wait for your response before proceeding, as I do not wish to be banned from this site.

I will respond to your other comments directed at me soon as well.
I have no problem with you denigrating me sir, as long as the playing field is level. If it is not please refrain from denigrating me in the future, you certainly are under no obligation to respond to my comments.

As I have said numerous times on here, what you frequently do instead of engage someone that you disagree with on the issues you belittle them or denigrate them.

Since you do not have to respond to my posts, I suggest that you denigrate and belittle others that you disagree with to elevate yourself into an expert on any subject being discussed. Quite frankly sir, you are not.

Also should you decide to respond to me, perhaps you can let a newbie like me know what is allowable in terms of personal attacks. If I have the latitude that you have, I could have a field day.

cheers
Paul

Paul,

Christopher, the comments editor, usually interprets the comments policy fairly leniently. It just depends how grouchy he is... and he can get pretty grouchy.

I can tell you that if you do decide to "have a field day" and attack someone for the hell of it rather than in response to something being discussed, his patience is not long.

STM said:

"Paul ... is there anything about which you DON'T have a conspiracy theory??"

Well that depends on which definition of conspiracy that you are referring to.

1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

According to definitions 1 and 5 virtually all of humans endeavors done in a collective fashion to achieve an end is in fact a conspiracy. So according to those definitions NO.

As to 2,3, and 4 of these definitions, I will say there are many things that are not conspiratorial in nature that people engage in. That being said those that are engaged in conspiracies almost invariable do them in the dark, for fear of being caught. This is where secret societies come from and why they are secret.

I would respond to you this way. Do you think 9-11 was a conspiracy? I assert that is a given regardless of who pulled it off that it was. That is one of the reasons I am frequently saying to Dave, which he has yet to admit that he too is a conspiracy theorist. Instead of admitting it, which is obvious to any rational person, he calls others the same name that he is. Because if he were to admit the obvious, that he too is a conspiracy theorist, he could no longer belittle and denigrate them with that cute label.

I hope this answers your question STM.

STM

I might add that 9-11 fits all of the above definitions. I am still waiting patiently for the supreme expert, Mr. Nalle to admit the obvious. My guess is that he doesnt have the humility to admit it.

For if he did admit it, he could no longer dismiss in such a derogatory fashion those that disagree with the official version. He might then either need to ignore, or actually engage someone that has a different conspiracy theory about 9-11 or a myriad of other issues of the day, with real debate. Up to this point all I see from him regarding this is derision.

Have you ever noticed how some people, particularly people that dont really know what they are talking about do that? Even though I am not a psychiatrist by profession, I think it may have something to do with an inferiority complex.

I would welcome your comments STM

I'm still in the dark (oops!).

Dave said in post 77:
"Show me a source that says there is actual EVIDENCE of fraud yesterday."

Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire are circulating after Hillary Clinton reversed a mammoth pre-polling deficit to defeat Barack Obama with the aid of Diebold electronic voting machines, while confirmed votes for Ron Paul in the Sutton district were not even counted.

According to a voter in Sutton, New Hampshire, three of her family members voted for Ron Paul, yet when she checked the voting map on the Politico website, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.
With 100% of precincts now reporting, the map still says zero votes for Ron Paul.

However I am not sure what you exactly mean by evidence Dave. The above is a start however.

Btw, i referenced LHS Associate President John Silvestro in post 66 because this is the same guy and company that was in charge of the voting machines in last night's election in New Hampshire. I thought you would be more knowledgeable on the subject Dave! I'm frankly suprised. This is not evidence of voter fraud however, but does show that these machines are easily hackable, and to be using them is quite frankly ridiculous. Surely you must agree Dave.

Since Diebold makes these machines as well as a majority of atm machines in the usa, I wonder why its so damned hard to hack my local atm! I know this because I have been trying to for years! Even more interesting I cannot recall one time in all these years that my atm made a single mistake down to the penny on my balance sheet. Hmmmm? Do I smell a conspiracy afoot?

You begin your article with the statement that your supposition of racism in the NH primary is an "ugly truth." Yet later you refer to your premise as regarding "mild racism," and go on to say "that this sort of mild racial consciousness is natural and not all that harmful and probably tolerable..." So "mild racism" which you consider to be "not all that harmful and probably tolerable is also an "ugly truth?"

Yes. It's ugly like most babies, but like most babies it will probably get more attractive somewhere down the line.

You are always the one here with the "proof in the pudding," the numbers guy. You like nothing better than giving the lie, or at least the inaccuracy of someone's claims by hauling out the results of some study, some poll, some numbers that prove someone wrong.

Yet you make a claim here for which there is not one iota of real evidence. Talk about "having it both ways."

Does the fact that I write some technical articles mean that from now on I can't write anything else, no satire, no more book reviews, no personal reminiscences and no pure opinion pieces? That seems unreasonably restrictive.

Both here and in comments elsewhere, you've stated that you believe that the Democrats harbour a base of racism.

That is not entirely accurate. I believe that the Democratic party bases its power on a policy of racial exploitation. I do not think that individual democrats or democrats as a group are any more racist than anyone else.

The manner with which you couch this charge subtly and indirectly suggests that such racism doesn't exist amongst Republicans. You may be correct. The racism that exists amongst Republicans is far more blatant. I suppose you could give them points for honesty.

Again, not quite what I believe. I believe that the Republican party is not racist nor does it exploit race on an institutional basis. However I agree that there are a certain number of Republicans who are racist, just as there are a certain number of Democrats who are. I'll even concede that with the occasional individual exception, the worst racists around who are in a major party have probably ended up in the GOP. Most of the really, really bad racists are independents or in some crazy third party movement.

Many old line southern racist Democrats are now new line southern racist Republicans.

Exactly. And I have argued before and will continue to assert that their beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with the founding principles of the GOP and that they ought to be encouraged to leave. I'm hoping that the nomination of either Giuliani or Huckabee will lead to that kind of a split in the party.

Dave

Dave said:
"I believe that the Democratic party bases its power on a policy of racial exploitation."

Pardon me while I puke. I guess the civil right act was the idea of your illustrious party Dave. Jim Crow perhaps. In recent history aside from the former red-neck racist Democrats from the deep south, it was no thanks to YOUR party that parity among the races has made any gains whatsoever. It is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black if you catch my drift.

Your party Dave has traditionally been the party of the elites in our society, not to mention their sordid racist past.

I suppose that the reason most black Americans don't support your party is due to brainwashing eh? Most minorities know when they are getting screwed. And in my opinion as well as many others most of said screwing has been done by YOUR party sir.

Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire are circulating after Hillary Clinton reversed a mammoth pre-polling deficit to defeat Barack Obama with the aid of Diebold electronic voting machines,

These allegations sure aren't showing up in the news or much on the web either. The only fraud allegations I can find are from Paulbots, and I don't take those terribly seriously. I could have predicted them before a single ballot was cast.

while confirmed votes for Ron Paul in the Sutton district were not even counted.

According to a voter in Sutton, New Hampshire, three of her family members voted for Ron Paul, yet when she checked the voting map on the Politico website, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.
With 100% of precincts now reporting, the map still says zero votes for Ron Paul.

According to the NH secretary of state this is not true. They show 31 votes for Paul in Sutton township. So much for that 'evidence'.

Btw, i referenced LHS Associate President John Silvestro in post 66 because this is the same guy and company that was in charge of the voting machines in last night's election in New Hampshire. I thought you would be more knowledgeable on the subject Dave! I'm frankly suprised. This is not evidence of voter fraud however, but does show that these machines are easily hackable, and to be using them is quite frankly ridiculous. Surely you must agree Dave.

I've never argued that the Diebold machines don't suck. Sylvestro has promised to install new firmware by November. But again, they're no more vulnerable than paper ballots, and what has never been proved is the actual exploitation of the backdoor in the firmware during an election.

Since Diebold makes these machines as well as a majority of atm machines in the usa, I wonder why its so damned hard to hack my local atm!

ATMs have never been set up for wireless networking because their design predates that technology.

Dave

Pardon me while I puke. I guess the civil right act was the idea of your illustrious party Dave.

Read your history. There have been a number of civil rights acts. Most of the early ones were sponsored by and passed almost entirely on Republican votes. You're probably thinking of the Civil Rights act of 1964, however. It passed with 80% Republican support in the House and 82% Republican support in the Senate, as opposed to 64% and 68% Democrat support. The main opposition to the act came from powerful House Democrats in committee chairmanships.

It was Jim Crow perhaps.

A program promulgated almost entirely by southern Democrats.

In recent history aside from the former red-neck racist Democrats from the deep south, it was no thanks to YOUR party that parity among the races has made any gains whatsoever. It is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black if you catch my drift.

Not really. The GOP's policies have always been in favor of equal rights with no special priveleges for anyone based on race, even after the influx of Dixiecrat scum, who remain a minority in the party.

Your party Dave has traditionally been the party of the elites in our society,

That would be the elites who have little or no interest in social issues or peoples color in any sense. And I might add mostly northern elistists, including the elitists who financed the abolition movement.

not to mention their sordid racist past.

Would that be the Republicans who freed the slaves, integrated the federal bureaucracy (later reversed by Wilson), integrated the Armed forces, or signed desegregation into law?

I suppose that the reason most black Americans don't support your party is due to brainwashing eh? Most minorities know when they are getting screwed. And in my opinion as well as many others most of said screwing has been done by YOUR party sir.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it brainwashing, but they have certainly been conditioned to believe that their best interests are served by those who will use government to provide for their needs rather than encouraging them to advance on their own merits.

Dave

Dave said:

"'ve never argued that the Diebold machines don't suck. Sylvestro has promised to install new firmware by November. But again, they're no more vulnerable than paper ballots, and what has never been proved is the actual exploitation of the backdoor in the firmware during an election."

To say that computerized voting machines are no more hackable than paper ballots is a complete joke. I wonder if you ever saw Bev Harris's movie about voting fraud that was shown on HBO last year Dave. It showed clearly how not only could some of these machines be hacked remotely but collectively as well. To hack paper ballots is much more of a localized phenomenon, i e it must be done at the local precinct level. So I must disagree with you emphatically Dave.

I am not saying that the election was hacked, however what I am intimating is that due to the sordid past of some of these voting companies, Diebold included, E S & S as well as Sequoia Voting Systems, having direct conflict of interests, as well as some of them hiring known felons, not to mention various former CIA members on their boards, that I am highly dubious of them.

You might want to be as well, as I am sure that you as well would like a level playing field when it comes to who makes the laws in our country Dave.

The answer: Pencil and paper, and ballot sheet put in a box supervised by election scrutineers and carted off for counting immediately it's full and the results sent to a central tally room.

Voting machines are a HUGE danger to the democratic process I reckon.

Why try to fix stuff that ain't broken??

Oh, I know ... it'c cheaper.

Regarding the Ron Paul votes in Sutton, it WAS confirmed. New Hampshire officials investigated and did a manual recount after the allegation was published, and 'discovered' that 31 Ron Paul votes were left off the 'official' sheet that was used when they called the numbers in. They attribute it to 'human error'. Fair enough, but the fact remains that it DID happen,, and those votes would NOT have been counted without the investigation.

Also, Sutton was not the only township where this happened; it also happened in Greenville, where another 25 votes were 'found'.

"And those votes would NOT have been counted without the investigation".

Yes, but they WERE counted.

Thus ends the conspiracy.

To the post that mentioned "some/ mild racism is ok" ....since when? It exists, but does that mean it is ok?

I think the difference between social and public behavior must be taken into account - socially I may mix with my own race...but when it comes to public actions (voting, hiring, promotions) ANY racism is troubling.

And it does matter whether the racism is done by the majority - if people vote only for their own race, we can NEVER have a black president - we could have a white woman president quite easily, but never a black one...if that is the result of 'mild racism' it doesn't seem ok to me...

To the poster who thinks racism is dead - don't know which planet you live on...

#93 BP

Good comments. I think most people would agree they possess some degree of 'racism'. It could be mild like the dinner party example or extreme like the KKK.

On the other hand we all control our racsim in professional/public situations.

Just because we control our racist tendencies doesn't mean they don't exist and influence our behavior and in NH's case our decisions.

Maurice, this is why people should be judged by their actions and not their thoughts. The measure of our humanity is our ability to have baser instincts and yet overcome them. If we were without any base instincts we'd be more than human, but if we have them and suppress them then we're doing pretty good.

Dave

To say that computerized voting machines are no more hackable than paper ballots is a complete joke.

To suggest this speaks of a profound ignorance of the history of voter fraud. All it takes is someone in a back room adding a pre-stuffed ballot box or shredding some ballots to pull off fraud with paper ballots. Hell, it doesn't even take that. ACORN regularly does it by just registering dead people and then voting for them.

Hacking the machines requires the blatant use of a PDA in the near vicinity of the machines which is easily spottable not only by election staff, but by the general public.

I wonder if you ever saw Bev Harris's movie about voting fraud that was shown on HBO last year Dave. It showed clearly how not only could some of these machines be hacked remotely but collectively as well. To hack paper ballots is much more of a localized phenomenon, i e it must be done at the local precinct level. So I must disagree with you emphatically Dave.

Yes, I've seen it and seen the documentation. But again, it only demonstrates the potential for the crime, not the existence of the crime. Paper ballot fraud is well documented as having happened again and again.

I am not saying that the election was hacked, however what I am intimating is that due to the sordid past of some of these voting companies, Diebold included, E S & S as well as Sequoia Voting Systems, having direct conflict of interests, as well as some of them hiring known felons, not to mention various former CIA members on their boards, that I am highly dubious of them.

Having a former CIA member on their board is not a crime - hell it's probably a good move in a security oriented business. It's also not a crime to be a Republican like the chairman of Diebold. My Mom worked for the CIA does that make me automatically suspect? Give me a break with the broad-brush paranoia.

Dave

You might want to be as well, as I am sure that you as well would like a level playing field when it comes to who makes the laws in our country Dave.

The phenomenon of white voters giving misleading answers to pollsters when there is a leading black candidate in a race is often referred to as "The Bradley Effect," after Tom Bradley, the Los Angeles mayor who ran for governor of California.

Chris Matthews showed the poll results and actual vote tallies for the Bradley race and several others similar to it last night. It was fascinating, because they all showed a similar pattern, identical to Tuesday night:

The black candidate's total was similar to the poll, maybe 1 or 2 points lower.

The white candidate's percentage increased by more than 5 points, basically getting most or all of the undecided vote.

This doesn't prove that Dave is right and I am wrong. But it certainly is worth exploration and discussion.

Another problem is using the word "racism," because it is so charged. It's hard to talk about "mild racism."

But for those like Baronius who insist we are in a post-racial society:

It will still be history-making to have a black president - or a woman president. Blacks and women remain vastly under-represented in government compared to their proportions in the populations.

And we've only had one woman VP major party nominee, and no black nominees, to date. Whether "racism" and "sexism" are the best words to describe this, race and gender obviously have been and are barriers for Americans.

It will still be history-making to have a black president - or a woman president. Blacks and women remain vastly under-represented in government compared to their proportions in the populations.

And we've only had one woman VP major party nominee, and no black nominees, to date. Whether "racism" and "sexism" are the best words to describe this, race and gender obviously have been and are barriers for Americans.

Which is what's going to be so interesting about this November's election. Let's face it, John Edwards is not going to get the Democratic nomination. So the Democrats are going to field either a woman or a black man. For some in the party, it will come down to a struggle between their political and prejudicial instincts.

It remains to be seen exactly how unelectable the Bush years have rendered any candidate the Republicans care to put forward.

However all these issues pan out, there's a very strong chance that the next tenant of the White House won't be a white man.

This doesn't prove that Dave is right and I am wrong. But it certainly is worth exploration and discussion.

I saw part of the Matthews show too, and it does seem like the 'bradley effect' is real. I bet that similar stats could be generated for races with women in them with some research.

Another problem is using the word "racism," because it is so charged. It's hard to talk about "mild racism."

I'm ready for a better term when someone coins it. Perhaps 'cold feet'?

t will still be history-making to have a black president - or a woman president. Blacks and women remain vastly under-represented in government compared to their proportions in the populations.

I'd say this is enormously more true of women then of blacks. With the priminent exception of the Senate blacks are getting close to accurate representation, especially in local government. Blacks are kept out of the senate because of the way it is structured. When you have only 2 Senators and they are elected statewide, you'd need to have a state with a very large black population to have a high probability of one getting elected. Anyone know which state is currently the blackest in the union?

And we've only had one woman VP major party nominee, and no black nominees, to date. Whether "racism" and "sexism" are the best words to describe this, race and gender obviously have been and are barriers for Americans.

But...nowhere near as much as they were in the past. I'm constantly amazed by the number of Republicans I've encountered who are seriously considering crossing over and voting for Obama in the primary to stop Hillary and are equally willing to vote for him in the general election if the wrong Republican gets the nomination.

Dave

I'm constantly amazed by the number of Republicans I've encountered who are seriously considering crossing over and voting for Obama...

What Dave doesn't say is that he's amazed because that number is zero...

;-p

"I frequently print out his derogatory comments and show them to my friends and family, they get a kick of em too!!"

Wow. You really need a hobby, bro. Maybe your friends and family, too. Or maybe they're just humoring you.

BTW, citing anything Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says as somehow objective or non-partisan is laughable.

As for the felon purge in Florida back in 2000, you should probably read this:

The 1998 mayoral election in Miami was a fiasco which was declared void by Florida courts, because--in violation of Florida law--convicted felons had been allowed to vote. The Florida legislature ordered the executive branch to purge felons from the voting rolls before the next election. Following instructions from Florida officials, Data Base Technologies (DBT) aggressively attempted to identify all convicted felons who were illegally registered to vote in Florida.

There were two major problems with the purge. First, several states allow felons to vote once they have completed their sentences. Some of these ex-felons moved to Florida and were, according to a court decision, eligible to vote. Florida improperly purged these immigrant felons.

Second, the comprehensive effort to identify all convicted felons led to a large number of false positives, in which persons with, for example, the same name as a convicted felon, were improperly purged. Purged voters were, in most cases, notified months before the election and given an opportunity to appeal, but the necessity to file an appeal was in itself a barrier which probably discouraged some legitimate, non-felon citizens from voting. According to the Palm Beach Post, at least 1,100 people were improperly purged.

The overbreadth of the purge was well-known in Florida before the election. As a result, election officials in 20 of Florida's counties ignored the purge list entirely. In these counties, convicted felons were allowed to vote. Also according to the Post, thousands of felons were improperly allowed to vote in the 20 non-purging counties. Analysis by Abigail Thernstrom and Russell G. Redenbaugh, dissenting from a report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, suggests that about 5,600 felons voted illegally in Florida. (The Thernstrom/Redenbaugh dissent explains why little credit should be given to the majority report, which was produced by flagrantly ignoring data.)

When allowed to vote, felons vote approximately 69 percent Democratic, according to a study in the American Sociological Review. Therefore, if the thousands of felons in the non-purging 20 counties had not been illegally allowed to vote, it is likely that Bush's statewide margin would have been substantially larger.

For the record, though, Diebold computerized voting machines need to die. I see nothing wrong with having paper ballots mandated in every jurisdiction in the country.

"When you have only 2 Senators and they are elected statewide, you'd need to have a state with a very large black population to have a high probability of one getting elected."

What a horrible sentiment, Dave. People are allowed to vote outside their race.

"Pardon me while I puke. I guess the civil right act was the idea of your illustrious [Republican] party Dave."

The civil rights legislation of the 1960s would not have passed without strong support from Republicans in Congress. That is simply a fact. Google it.

"Jim Crow perhaps."

"Jim Crow" was supported by Democrats in the South for almost a century. Again, look it up.

"In recent history aside from the former red-neck racist Democrats from the deep south"

First of all, some people would consider "red-neck" to be a racist term. Second, is West Virginia part of the "Deep South?" Seeing as how it went Union during the Civil War, I think not. Well, the Democrats of West Virginia have been reelecting a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan to the Senate for several decades now. He is currently third in line of succession to the Presidency. Should Dubya and Cheney die at the same time, Robert "Sheets" Byrd (D-WV) becomes President. I hear he's pretty close with Harry Reid...