NH Recount - Hillsborough County (except Weare) summary within

Looks like all candidates lost votes - what's the deal with wards that are numbered "5"? :tinfoilhat:

Edit - oh, and Obama lost 100 votes!!?? in Wilton - weird - I think someone had a "typo" of one digit - yikes!

Obama took the worst hit in terms of raw votes, didn't he?

scold, a troublemaker, an instigator. Remember, he sent his voters (all what, three of them?) to Obama's camp in Iowa.

Pull the string--this was all about getting people to suspect fraud by Clinton or on her behalf (and oh, we saw plenty of whining here, didn't we?), even though the GOP thinks Obama's easier to beat, Reagan-snuggling notwithstanding. It would make more sense for them to throw the election to him if they were doing any serious cheating. For awhile there, they thought Clinton was the easier target, but they aren't thinking that anymore. That's why they've resumed tossing shit at her, after that brief cease fire.

DK just wants to be a player....he's got attention-seeking disorder.

He needs to get his ass back to his own district and do a little campaigning, IMO.

but then again, I suspect you know that. Or perhaps you want to deny his campaign made the contributions?

he's got attention-seeking disorder.

And do you have a little problem with folks having confidence in the election? Or is their an entitlement disorder on your side?

He needs to get his ass back to his own district and do a little campaigning, IMO.

He is running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. What district do you want him to run in?

Or do you think there is some "inevitable" conclusion to the campaign??


:sarcasm:

It barely made it there before the cut off time.

But then again, I suspect you KNOW that.

:sarcasm:

Grow up.

DK is ON THE BALLOT in his Congressional District. He's running there.

He needs to attend to the race he has a rat's ass chance of winning, because this time, he has serious opponents.

I believe you make a scurrilous, if not libelous, statement. The money was donated to Kucinich to spend as he wished on his campaign.

(BTW, did Hillary have a positive balance in her campaign before declaring for President?) :sarcasm:

DK is ON THE BALLOT in his Congressional District. He's running there.

He has a right to doesn't he? As well as running for President??

I believe that is the precedent set for all members of the US House since the first Rep ran. Got a problem with that ? Or are you just busy worrying about how to dress for the Coronation??

He needs to attend to the race he has a rat's ass chance of winning, because this time, he has serious opponents.

With such sage (and unbiased advice), why don't you apply to be on his campaign staff. Or if his staff is full, I hear Mwai Kibaki, the Kenyan President-select, may have some openings. They've a style of democracy you might cotton to.

and who did not support him for President donated so the cash would go to the recount.

If you don't know that, you are OBTUSE.

And there's nothing 'scurrious' or 'libelous' about that. Hell, the call went out right here.

My advice is sage, and it is not unbiased. I don't support the guy and I make no secret of it. And what's with the Kenyan crack? Swiping at Obama in an oblique way, by referencing the shitty government of his dead daddy's country? I'm not an Obama fan, either. Might as well crap on Edwards and Clinton, too, while you're at it, eh? Cover all the bases, while you keep deluding yourself that DK is anything other than an attention seeking gadfly.

Get over yourself. You're a bit overdosed on high dudgeon.

As do the other candidates... ever since they declared.

As to requests for monies for the recount People who didn't give a shit about his candidacy and who did not support him for President donated so the cash would go to the recount. have been able to do so since today.

I am one. It is a patriotic thing to do. Recounts are good (do you say otherwise?)

As to If you don't know that, you are OBTUSE., I would reply that if I am OBTUSE, then you are a FOOL. I was on the phone with his Campaign Manager and NH lawyer as arrangements were made yesterday. Were you??

If not, you should speak from your mouth rather than any other vehicle, as there is supposed to be a neurological toggle between what intellect you have and your tongue. And, as it happens (and opposed to your strident and vehement representations to the contrary), the $27,000 was paid with pre-existing donations.

And there's nothing 'scurrious' or 'libelous' about that. Hell, the call went out right here.

Document the money trail, and I will concede, if you will withdraw your comment if you cannot prove it. Show the cancelled checks.

My advice is sage, and it is not unbiased.

Unbiased?? I'll leave that to others to decide.

And what's with the Kenyan crack? Swiping at Obama in an oblique way, by referencing the shitty government of his dead daddy's country?

Perhaps you are a FOOL. Or you read no newspapers.

Otherwise you would know that the reference was to the recently stolen election in Kenya, by President Kibaki, and where hundreds of innocent Kenyans have been shot to death by soldiers of as partisan a government as you are a person.

Might as well crap on Edwards and Clinton, too, while you're at it, eh? Cover all the bases, while you keep deluding yourself that DK is anything other than an attention seeking gadfly.

Are you fool enough to believe that anyone supporting the Kucinich recount is a supporter of Kucinich for President??

Perhaps you've not heard of HR 6200. Kucincih 109th Congress attempt to get Hand-counted paper balance for this Presidential election?? It is that alone which would cause a person to aid that cause, myself included.

You see, I care more about the integrity of the electoral process than I do about who wins it.

As to your insipid comment Get over yourself. You're a bit overdosed on high dudgeon., please understand that there is no "high dudgeon" in me.

The only thing high around this post, naturally or otherwise, is the pontifical rectitude of someone who knows nothing more about Kenya than it is the birthplace of Obama's father.

You also don't read for comprehension. I said my advice was NOT unbiased, but you didn't EXPECT to see that, so you ignored it and plowed on merrily, that high dudgeon you claim not to possess in full bloom. You're a real Quick Draw McGraw, aren't you?

The call for donations was FOR the recount. And solicitations were made on this very forum. Cancelled checks? Money trail? What are you, on drugs? I'm not handling that asshole's money. I'm telling you what was posted here. You go poke through the DU archives now, you'll find the exhortations.

I'm so pleased you know how to use a telephone. Am I supposed to be impressed?

You're the one who brought up the government of KENYA, not me. So stop trying to mitigate that curious comment. You could have mentioned any number of shitty governments with suspect elections of late (how about Pakistan, they even kill candidates there), but you had to pick that one. So, yeah, sure, whatever. Paging Doctor Freud....

Jealous??

:eyes:

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When you kite a check, you have the money, only it's not where it's supposed to be when you kite that check.

That money sailed from supporters of other candidates to DK for the express purpose of fucking Clinton.

You're the one who is suggesting he stole the money, not me. Where you pulled that little gem out, I've no idea--oh, and I don't really CARE, either.

And here's some advice, there, Little Sunshine: If you don't want to hear from me, stop replying to my posts like a twitchy little horse just RARING to get out of the gate. And take your OWN advice, whydoncha?

FWIW, calling people "fake Dems" who "won't shut up" is against DU rules. Do give them the once-over, now--it's certainly preferable to be a good DUer, and not an obstreperous one, there, Oh Cheerful One!

Your rather petulant response is the mark of a weak and certainly childish debate strategy, one that lacks any substantive argument, too. That's unfortunate--for you.

Keep smiling, Sunshine...you brighten everyone's day with your gracious and amusing commentary!

It's often ahead of the deposit, but the money gets there eventually. See, the appropriate definition wasn't the one you cited, but the one you conveniently ignored, because it didn't suit your argument: 2: to get money or credit by a kite

Thank you for putting me on your ignore list. Really. That was so thoughtful of you, and it is appreciated. You're pretty obtuse, and the immature nature of your repartee is pretty doggone boring. You also can't hold your own in a discussion, and you're so thin-skinned that it's pretty near impossible to have any sort of rational discourse with you.

Of course, you aren't reading this, because I'm on your Ignore List (oh, Happy Day for me). See, when you SAY you're going to put someone on the ignore list, you actually have to do it--it's in those pesky DU rules.

Kucinich's campaign sent the $27,000 to start the recount to the NH SoS

And a quick look back to the posts that were flying like wet cowshit around here in the aftermath of the NH contest demonstrate that.

not who wins or loses....

at this point we all lose.

were accusing one particular candidate of cheating, of being in league with everyone from Rove to the Pope, in order to "steal" the election. The din was so loud and the accusations so vociferous--without any PROOF, mind you, proof being for sissies, I guess-- that the threads had to be shoved into the election reform forum.

There were absurd numbers of rather rabid partisans posting thread after thread of tinfoil suppositions/accusations, and they were pretty mendacious accusations, too. Funny how they aren't making too much noise, now. They said they cared about transparency, but they really only cared about transparency that had the results they wanted.

No one objects to a transparent and verifiable election process.

What one does object to is the baseless accusation of cheating by one candidate by a bunch of chickenshits who "hit and run" with accusations, and who don't even raise their heads to offer a mea culpa when their accusations prove to be baseless, wickedly partisan, and shameful. They discredit our party, certainly, and make it look as though we have more than our fair share of fucking idiots onboard, and that's not an accurate representation of our membership. IMO.

when you say and they wanted her NH win to be suspect. And they got that wish., that the wish was gotten by the use of the Rovian tactics of vote caging.

And when you run your mouth like this "The din was so loud and the accusations so vociferous--without any PROOF, mind you, proof being for sissies, I guess-- that the threads had to be shoved into the election reform forum., at me (who you will find has no dog in this fight) you merely convince others of the likelihood that charges of cut-throat partisanship are, indeed, true.

You don't find me in this line There were absurd numbers of rather rabid partisans posting thread after thread of tinfoil suppositions/accusations, and they were pretty mendacious accusations, too., so all you have done is alienate another democrat you might have recruited.

No one objects to a transparent and verifiable election process.

Glad to see you write this. The vicious partisanship you've demonstrated up to now had me convinced that you did object(s) to a transparent and verifiable election process.

Of course, this over-the-top, diatribe What one does object to is the baseless accusation of cheating by one candidate by a bunch of chickenshits who "hit and run" with accusations, and who don't even raise their heads to offer a mea culpa when their accusations prove to be baseless, wickedly partisan, and shameful. They discredit our party, certainly, and make it look as though we have more than our fair share of fucking idiots onboard, and that's not an accurate representation of our membership. has now convinced me that you could not be serious when you wrote No one objects to a transparent and verifiable election process.

As far as the IMO goes, it goes nowhere with me. The vindictiveness you've shown here eradicated all possibility of my ever considering your opinion, except as a bad example.

But you're not saying anything worth noting.

Getting pissed at me because you didn't get your recount wishes is unhelpful and really rather childish. And apparently, that IS the case--since you're enthusiastically taking my entirely generic remarks rather PERSONALLY.

Or do you wrongly assume that everyone is always talking about YOU when they discuss issues? There's help available for that condition, you know.

If the shoe didn't fit, no one forced you to wear it.

The fact that you wrote a whole big post busily CRAMMING your foot in there suggests either an emotional condition or a guilty conscience, and that's your problem, not mine.

it is only my mouth I am running !

Getting pissed at me because you didn't get your recount wishes

Oh, I got my recount wishes. A recount of the entire state is all I want. Regardless of who wins.

And apparently, that IS the case No. |As I stated, you got it wrong.

--since you're enthusiastically taking my entirely generic remarks rather PERSONALLY.

Yoour remarks are hardly "generic", I would say they could be classified as "anti-Kucinich", or possibly (correct me if I'm wrong) "pro-front runner".

Or do you wrongly assume that everyone is always talking about YOU when they discuss issues?

I would say that all of the venom you spewed at everyone you claimed was out to get "whichever-candidate", by wanting a recount, a little further back, puts all those offensive comments in your own mouth.

There's help available for that condition, you know.

I am quite sure you would be familiar with that. :crazy:

If the shoe didn't fit, no one forced you to wear it.

Perhaps you should ask yourself who started out selling shoes?

The fact that you wrote a whole big post busily CRAMMING your foot in there suggests either an emotional condition or a guilty conscience, and that's your problem, not mine.

I've written no more than you.


And, perhaps, you are so busy denying that quite obvious fact that you cannot recognize your own projection??

My remarks ARE entirely generic. I'm not projecting, either. Your somewhat exhortative insistence to the contrary doesn't change those facts.

See, I read all those threads about the recount. You can, too, if you'd like. THey're piled up, like cordwood, in Election Reform.


I'm pleased that you aver that 'all' you want is a recount of the entire state, 'regardless of who wins.' There are plenty of folk who had much more in mind, as you can see if you bother to review those threads.

But this is NOT the outcome expected or desired by many here.

No, some wished that we could avoid the embarrassment of a primary campaign and simply anoint the new Queen, didn't they?


Why don't you try a little democracy ??

and they wanted her NH win to be suspect. And they got that wish.

It didn't quite result in the anointing of the King, though, did it...because those votes they were CERTAIN were flipped, well, they weren't. And the King didn't do as well in the recount as he did the first time out, if only nominally.

That "When did you stop beating your wife?" aspect applies when partisans make spurious accusations. You can't put that genie back int the bottle. The people who pulled this dirty trick/smear without proof have to live with themselves, and they should recall their own behavior during this sorry episode the next time they are inspired to get righteous or shirty about political maneuverings.

No one objects to a recount. The problem is when people point at the winner, yelling CHEAT CHEAT CHEAT, without Jack Shit in the way of evidence, and then slink away like cowardly hyenas when the recount shows no such thing.

It's rather Rovian, that kind of shoddy, mendacious, and soullessly partisan behavior. And it's anything BUT "a little democracy," frankly.

I am looking for those posters who were screaming FRAUD FRAUD and CHEAT CHEAT ...

and were directing their VITRIOL at ONE CANDIDATE.

Without evidence. But certainly, Con Brio!

This wasn't about transparency, intially, though everyone's trying to pretend it is NOW. Originally, it was a "Rhymes With Witch" Hunt. And don't try to suggest it was ANYTHING but. Because it wasn't.

This is now about "Shit, Hillary didn't CHEAT! Waaah! Let's move the goalposts..."

It doesn't really matter at this stage, though. The mud has been tossed and the shit has been smeared. And all the people who were hollering CHEAT FRAUD are now consigned to the DU archives, afraid now to raise their chickenshit little heads.

If you weren't one of those people tossing accusations without ANY evidence, you should rest easy with a clear mind.

A few weird anomalies, but overall a tiny percent.

:D

Yeah, not a lot percentage-wise - most minor errors tend to cancel each other out as you might expect.

doesn't matter much. It is a matter of the integrity of the process.

There could, as many here could attest, still be a huge problem that with the results of this election. A recount of the electronic count of the Diebold machines will not necessarily unearth every possible problem. Or even discover outright fraud.

But isn't it better to use the tools at the discretion of citizens and candidates to do the best job we can ??

And we have already found out that there are very serious problems in the chain of custody of the ballots.

When the NH SoS admits to having no idea where the memory cards are immediately after the race, or under whose control they have been, that is a BIG problem.

Given a fair election with no fraud, any of ours can mop the floor with any of theirs.

However, unless we start shining lots of bright lights on the process, we won't get a fair election and we'll have the White House stolen again.

:shrug:

it's the only obvious error and it seems to favor Obama stragely enough.

...and replace them with hard facts.

I don't understand your criticism?

...but over the last few days, I have detected a pattern in your posts of minimization: that the recount has uncovered nothing big and is thus proof that all is hunky-dory in the State of Hew Hampshire.

Many posts from you pointing out that there have only been a tiny fraction of votes uncovered is one example.

Perhaps it is only the overall anti-recount sentiment that pervades the Dem establishment (Skinner and Kos are but two of many examples), and your posts feed that sentiment without your realizing it. If so, please accept my regrets.


I do ask that you be cognizant of the fact the the Election Integrity movement is fighting uphill, and be aware of the impression that you support the anti recount movement via your posts, whether wittingly or not.

I would be glad to post the results from my home state no matter what they showed. I do not wish to get people revved up if the numbers do not show any major/obvious errors. I have pointed out the "problem" wards without much comment except that I think Wilton was indeed a transcription error. I try to remain neutral on this topic, even though being "neutral" on this topic tends to tar me as you have suggested. I work with another person who is an expert statistician - I will be sure to pursue to the ends of the earth any unreasonable errors, voter disinfranchisement or election fraud as soon as it shows up. If I am skeptical, it's because I am a hard-fact based person by nature. If my lack of emotion on this topic bothers you, then do what most are doing - simply ignore my posts. I'm not posting this info to start or participate in arguments (as much as possible anyway.)

...I guess the "You Moron" screen name gave me a false impression. I will read your posts in a different light henceforth.

All the best.

and that sign the freeper is holding in my avatar that says "get a brain morans!"

I do like to make fun of Freepers :D

I know the sign and its bandanna-clad holder, but the rest escapes me.
:hi:

I despise right-wingers so much that I've never actually clicked a link they led there, nor have I ever been there otherwise. I'm SERIES!!11! (that's another Freeperism) :D

Anybody got an English-Freepish dictionary? I had no idea that there was so much comic ore to mine from that source.

It shoud not be neccesary for any candidate to pony up money to do what ought to be done as a matter of course.

There are several polling locations that had very significant errors that could have been caught with an audit. I hope the Democratic SoS will use this opportunity to institute automatic audits of at least 10% of the polling stations after every election. There are several other areas of concern he needs to address too. This should be a learning experience for NH.

Which is what I suspect LHS originally did to make the numbers of ballots they returned matched their rigged numbers, just in case there was a recount. I guess somebody else swiped a few more after that.