If Obama or Edwards had won last night there wouldn't be talk of stolen elections...

I'm reading a lot of folks crying 'foul' because Hillary had the audacity to win.

:applause:

this is just insane.

I think I grew out of that sometime around 4th grade.

The tens of thousands of voters disenfranchised in Ohio in 2004?

The 50 some million Gore voters disenfranchised in 2000?

All 4th graders who need to grow up in your view?

Who wins if somebody hacks the vote?

And a SCIENTIFICALLY sampled exit poll was done, and it, as did every single presidential exit poll did until they were stopped, MATCHED THE VOTE PERFECTLY.

The VOTE tally and the Scientific Exit Poll vs all the "Who do you like" polls, all of them unscientifically sampled?

2 out of 3.

What difference does it make if it is a primary?

As for the rest of your post, I am not arguing one way or the other on those.

and pulled the same whiney stuff, I'd have said exactly the same thing.

Had my candidate won, I would be saying exactly the same thing as I am saying now.

Election integrity comes before any candidate.

I have to strongly object to the use of the words "whine" and "whiney." I am not whining, and using that word is a cowardly and sneaky way to attack the messenger rather than deal with an unpleasant message.

Either that or trying to find hidden racist messages and agendas.

Oh really?

nice title for a book maybe?

Though, I understand it. Expectations were through the roof, and many are looking for answers.

"Somebody cheated" is a pretty easy place to start.

How can that be? Historically, it seems they were much more accurate prior to the botched 2000 election. I think there's a reason for that, and I think something fishy is going on.

I would have been happier if it had gone to John Edwards, but I would have still been questioning how the polls could have been so off. :shrug:

far from it.

And some, like me, even if I got caught up in the flush of Edwards' "suprise upset victory" (I'm sure this is just a coincidence, but the few who stand up and try to fight the status quo NEVER get "surprise upset victories" in Diebold Nation) I would look at the data and start to scratch my head.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2640123

We have one CNN Exit poll, thank's to Skinner, that shows a Clinton win- but all of the other pre-vote data shows Obama winning. I do not care who won really- would prefer Edwards personally but I am fine with whomever won- as long as they won- fair and square, in a transparant, verifiable counting process which, with Diebold machines, has yet to ever happen.

what matters is the actual vote. Exit polls match the tallies. That's what matters.

exit polls can be adjusted to reflect the "actual vote count." Pre-election polls, while not perfect, give a general sense of where the electorate is and major swings overnight are highly unusual.

Did you believe them then? There are not "exit polls" but one poll done by this company shared by CNN, ABC, etc.

The hand counted ballots in rural counties showed a win for Obama. Since Obama gets a lot of support from young, more liberal voters, how does that make sense?

Edison/Mitofsky was hired to do more than just not cause others to make mistakes. They were hired to restore confidence to the whole election projection game after Voter News Service botched the job in 2000 in Florida. VNS's goofs resulted in the networks calling the state for Gore, withdrawing the call, calling Bush the winner hours later, and then withdrawing that call.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109310

poll chicanery involved, but people are suspicious because of the polls from the past few days.

they mean very little when it comes time to vote because the end result is all that matters. The exit polls tracked close to the results of the race and in the end...that's what matters.

Clinton's camp internal polling had Obama up 11 points, Obama's camp had him up 14 points. The most remarkable thing about the outcome was that polling matched all else EXCEPT the Clinton/Obama race. Until election fraud is dealt with summarily and definitively, there will always be questions when these stark discrepancies arise. That has nothing to do with partisanship but rather the necessity of clean elections to assuage these anxieties in the electorate.

It is just one company, and their numbers have miraculously changed to "match" the official results in the past.

Edison/Mitofsky was hired to do more than just not cause others to make mistakes. They were hired to restore confidence to the whole election projection game after Voter News Service botched the job in 2000 in Florida. VNS's goofs resulted in the networks calling the state for Gore, withdrawing the call, calling Bush the winner hours later, and then withdrawing that call.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109310

Attributing it to Diebold intervention would have been counterintuitive.

If you were to ask Wally O'Dell which Democrat is preferable, I have little doubt what he'd say.

After 2000, 2002 and 2004, I'm really surprised to hear people here so credulous of an unaudited e-vote.

here even for 2004 and who don't understand the real stakes.

I am for Edwards, but I am delusional to think that this election has been stolen from him or Senator Obama. I am not very happy that Senator Clinton won, but it's pretty wishful thinking to think that she "stole" it.

I believe I care enough about this country to recognize a few things.......... and ever since 2000 and 2004, suspicious exit polls and strange reporting anomolies raise the hair on back of my neck no matter who they benefit. I haven't read enough to be certain that this election was that fishy, but there seem to be elements of it from what little I've seen. Just because it benefits my candidate is not a reason to ignore it IMO. (In fact THAT would really worry me). And all of us, no matter who we support, need to CARE about elections or we will keep seeing 2000 and Ohio 2004 over and over, to the great peril of our democracy.

It's the polling before the voting that was off which doesn't matter since it's a snapshot of a race that can quickly change. Those are the facts that people shouldn't ignore and many have conveniently done so.

Even tho' I wanted Edwards to take it, a fair win is a fair win and the people of NH made their choice.

I'm all for Hillary winning and this was a very tight race so getting the nom is far from a done deal. All we can do his hope our candiate wins and if he or she don't...we support the one who does win. Edwards is the spoiler, I think. His participation is keeping it tight which is a good thing, IMO. Without him there would be a presumptive nominee by now which would not serve anyone. It's anyone's race.

CNN, ABC, all draw from this one company, so there aren't "exit polls."

Edison/Mitofsky was hired to do more than just not cause others to make mistakes. They were hired to restore confidence to the whole election projection game after Voter News Service botched the job in 2000 in Florida. VNS's goofs resulted in the networks calling the state for Gore, withdrawing the call, calling Bush the winner hours later, and then withdrawing that call.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109310

:eyes:

Because no matter who won, we all should be concerned with a totally untransparent process. Why was every other pre-election poll numbers pretty close, when only Clinton's and Obama's numbers were that different?

ALMOST EVERY talking head and commentator last night was "astonished" by Hillary's victory. But no one can suggest dirty tricks, because that's unthinkable to mutter.

From http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html

"There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why."

"On the other hand, the pre-election polls in the New Hampshire Republican race were accurate. The problem was isolated to the Democratic side"

These exit polls were being discussed before the final tallies and they all matched up.

It was the polling prior that didn't match and why folks are so shocked. That polling doesn't matter because it's a snapshot of a given moment during a race that can change and has changed a lot over the past months.

Does that mean you're comfortable with Diebold machines counting 81% of the vote? I'm not.

Regardless of what happened last night, if you truly care about the state of our democracy, you'd care that Diebold machines are counting the votes.

There are not "exit polls" that I know of, but would love to see others. Not a trustworthy company.

Edison/Mitofsky was hired to do more than just not cause others to make mistakes. They were hired to restore confidence to the whole election projection game after Voter News Service botched the job in 2000 in Florida. VNS's goofs resulted in the networks calling the state for Gore, withdrawing the call, calling Bush the winner hours later, and then withdrawing that call.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109310

DU is not indicatative of the general population. People want Hillary. Even up here in Canada, people want Hillary to win. Ditto the majority of Europeans.

I don't really care...they are all the same to me. But I think she won this one fair and square.

When the left starts being known for calling "stolen election" for any outcome they don't approve, it's going to impossible to reform the system.

unjust war and corporate rule--and leftist candidates unexpectedly lose--candidates who oppose or disavow unjust war, and who pledge to challenge the status quo or to fight it like FDR did--and the vote counting system is run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, you're gonna get some highly justified yelps from the left wing.

Rightwing candidates SHOULDN'T BE WINNING in these current circumstances. Hillary Clinton stands for everything that is fucking over the American people--massive job losses due to "free trade," a $10 trillion deficit, wholesale looting of the federal government by war profiteers, impunity for ghastly war crimes, rightwing corporate media monopolies, shredding of the Constitution, failure to defend the Constitution and the rule of law, massive police state spending, credit card usury, skyrocketing health care costs, busting of the American middle class, and much else. The status quo is FASCIST. She is status quo. She shouldn't have won.*

And, by God, if Obama or Edwards had won, I would immediately be suspicious that they weren't who they say they are--reformers (Obama-mild, Edwards-strong). I am not sure of either one--that he is who he says he is. I like what I hear, especially from Edwards. It's more in the FDR mode that we badly need ("Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred."--FDR). But we have been betrayed so many times, and so profoundly, by Democratic politicians, in this putrid corporate news monopoly/campaign money atmosphere, that it is very difficult to know for sure what any candidate's true policies and true character really are. However, one important clue, as to the real threat they pose to Corporate Rule, is that they lose on Diebold, ES&S or Sequoia voting machines.

Suspicion of a rightwing, status quo candidate winning, in a fucked over nation like this one, IS JUSTIFIED when the vote count is controlled by a rightwing corporation using TRADE SECRET CODE. And ALL results are suspect in these circumstances of NON-TRANSPARENT vote counting, where the public has no right to review the private, corporate, SECRET code. (An optiscan ballot is no guarantee against a stolen election. Optiscans are run on TRADE SECRET code, as are the central tabulators--and most of the ballots are never counted in optiscan systems. I'm not sure what they did in NH--couldn't find out about the audit. But, generally, even the best of states are doing only a 1% audit--which is miserably inadequate in a TRADE SECRET system run by a Bushite corporation.)

Further, when you can see the rightwing corporate media CREATING the narrative for the rightwing candidate's surprising win*, suspicion is yet more justified.

Let me just clue you in to who is 'counting' 80% of the nation's votes...

DIEBOLD: Until recently, headed by Wally O'Dell, a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer," right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush-Cheney in 2004"--NH has a Diebold optiscan system;

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture), with initial funder and major investor, far rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship; until recently, they were run by two brothers, Bob and Tod Urosevich; and

SEQUOIA: The third major election theft industry player, which hired Republican Bill Jones, former Calif Secretary of State, and his chief aide, Alfie Charles, to peddle their machines--in an outstanding example of the highly corrupt practice of "revolving door" employment, which has combined with lavish lobbying, corporate secrecy, corporate lawyers writing our laws, and the heady power of multi-million dollar electronics contracts in government, to destroy our election system. (See Dan Rather's "The Trouble with Touchscreens," www.HD.net, for an expose of Sequoia's and ES&S's collusion in the Florida 2000 theft, and of the horrors of electronic voting machine manufacture.)

How can we trust any results of this non-transparent vote counting, conducted under a veil of corporate secrecy? How can we trust results, in particular, that favor rightwing, pro-corporate, pro-war policies?

We can't. And we are absolutely right to be particularly suspicious of the win of a "free trade," pro-corporate, pro-war candidate in a Democratic Party primary--a party in which 80% to 90% of the members oppose the war she supports (with 70% of the American people in general opposing it). Stats on grass roots opposition to "free trade" and Corporate Rule are also high. Were women fooled that a pro-corporate, pro-war woman candidate would protect their rights better than a reforming male candidate? Do women believe that Hillary will fight this fascist/corporate Supreme Court in any meaningful and effective way, when they deep-six Roe v. Wade? Maybe. It's possible. But why should there be uncertainty? Why rely on TRADE SECRET vote tabulation by rightwing Bushite corporations? Why not...

COUNT. ALL. THE. VOTES?!!!

Answer me that, and I will stop being suspicious that this RIGHTWING BUSHITE CORPORATION tweaked the vote to favor this RIGHTWING CANDIDATE, in a narrative written by our fascist, war profiteering corporate news monopolies.



-------------

*(NOTE: Clinton v. Obama was 39% v. 36%, by the way--hardly a rout by Clinton. And the combined vote against her was almost 60%. That is not a big win. It is a squeaker. But it's being played as a big triumph--page 2 of the corporate media narrative begun last week of a Clinton "meltdown.")

even before the end results were announce...both were tracking very close together as they are supposed to. Now, if the exit polls and final results were radically different, then you might have something. That's not the case.

It was the women of N.H. that gave Hillary the win.

Oh, BTW, Hillary is not right wing.

Edison/Mitofsky vowed never to let us get our hands on their undoctored exit polls again--as we did after the 2004 election (because alert bloggers and statistical experts took screen shots of the original polls). The exit polls showed a Kerry win. The pollster then DOCTORED the exit polls, in impossible ways, to FORCE the exit polls to match the results of Diebold/ES&S's secret formulae (a Bush win).

And because we caught them at it, they will never let us see that again: how they tweak the exit polls.

It is utterly foolish to trust exit polls in this circumstance, just as it is utterly foolish to trust results obtained by TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by RIGHTWING BUSHITE CORPORATIONS.

Jeez, I can believe that I have to do a primer on WHAT A TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNT is. We do NOT have a transparent vote count in this country. It is almost all controlled by RIGHTWING BUSHITE CORPORATIONS, with SECRET code that we are NOT ALLOWED TO REVIEW. Don't you understand what this means?

And now they're FORCING the exit polls to MATCH those results--also out of public view.

It is just foolish to trust election results in this circumstance--especially results that favor corporate power and war.

As for Hillary being rightwing, yeah, it depends on whose political spectrum you are judging her on. On any reasonably broad political spectrum, she is not only rightwing, she is fascist. But on our war profiteering corporate news monopolies' political spectrum--the only one permitted in the current highly controlled and manipulated political debate--she's a "centrist."

Pro-war: voted for it, voted for all the funding of it; has never challenged its premises of executive power and pre-emptive war. That's "centrist"??-- in a country in which SEVENTY PERCENT of the people oppose the war and want it ended, and in a party in which 80% to 90% of the membership opposes the war and wants it ended? She has taken the Bushite FASCIST position on this and on virtually every war and military spending and policy issue.

Pro-corporate on every criteria: That's "centrist"?-- in a country where the workers, the middle class and the poor--the vast majority--are being totally fucked over by Corporate Power on everything from credit card usury to skyrocketing health care costs to gas gouging to massive looting of the federal treasury by global corporate predators and the super-rich?

Sorry, THEIR political spectrum is not reasonable. It is extremely narrow, and skewed way, way to the right.

Hillary is a bought and paid for representative of the Corporate Rulers, war profiteers and the super-rich. And I guarantee you that Roe v. Wade is going down on her watch, because she WILL NOT CHALLENGE THIS FASCIST/CORPORATE SUPREME COURT in any meaningful or effective way. And we'll wish to God we had John Edwards fighting for us when that happens--fighting for us like FDR did when he threatened to "pack the Supreme Court" and saved Social Security from being declared unconstitutional. Hillary will never do that. Her defense of women's rights is SHALLOW. It is a front for installation of a president who will PROTECT CORPORATE RULE. Her whole career--and this campaign--is about supporting fascist/corporate POWER. Women's rights are irrelevant, sad to say. And we're going to find that out, to our grief.

I can't tell you how much I would like to see a truly progressive woman candidate for president. But Hillary is not that. She will do more damage to women's rights, because the chief oppression of women is POVERTY, and Hillary's policies will mean more poverty for more women. This $10 trillion deficit is going to hacked out of the backs of poor women. That's what the Bush-Clinton coziness is about--the rich NOT PAYING FOR THIS GODDAMNED WAR.

We are in for a rough ride, my friends. I didn't expect the global corporate predators and their election theft corporations to tip their hands so early in this contest. And, unless New Hampshire has done a 100% handcount, as a check on machine fraud--the ONLY action that could allay my suspicions--I think we are already looking at Presidential Stolen Election III, this time for the corporate mop-up, cleverly disguises as a 'Democratic' administration. The fascist Republicans rob us blind; the rightwing Democrats make the poor pay, and never challenge that status quo.

At least with Obama--and to a greater extent, Edwards (and certainly with Kucinich, if he hadn't been so honest)--we would have a chance at a challenge to the status quo--Corporate Rule. With Hillary, there is no chance. So we had better get working on our main problem: restoring transparent elections. We won't have them this year--but maybe Hillary won't blockade real election reform, once she is in power, and we can rescue this democracy from "organized money," as FDR called it, sometime in the future.

newspapers and broadcasters, too, don't you?

If you're thinking there is collusion between pollsters, statisticians, broadcasters, those running the machines then perhaps the tin foil hat is a bit too tight. You're talking a lot of people conspiring to fix a primary for one candidate.

Now, I'm all for paper ballots. I think we should have them...kind of like what we've got when deposit or withdraw money from our bank accounts, but I'm not going to cry foul because my candidate of choice didn't get elected. It smacks of being a sore loser which I haven't considered myself one since 2004 and we know how that turned out.

Hillary is not right wing. SHe is pro-choice and you need to quit smoking whatever it is you're smoking if you think she's not. Her record proves she is pro-choice.

Sure she voted for the IWR as did a lot of dems. It's up to each person if they're willing to give her a pass on that.

But I'm not going to buy into the meme that Hillary is somehow right wing like Limbaugh or the rest of those dolts in the repuke party. Her voting record and her speeches are completely counter to that.

I guarantee you this...when it comes to corporate money NO CANDIDATE will get far without it once they get the nomination. I will say this, too...I'd rather have our worst dem in office than their best repuke.

CNN, ABC, etc. all use ONE company. Please post link to any other newspapers, would love to read those results!

Edison/Mitofsky was hired to do more than just not cause others to make mistakes. They were hired to restore confidence to the whole election projection game after Voter News Service botched the job in 2000 in Florida. VNS's goofs resulted in the networks calling the state for Gore, withdrawing the call, calling Bush the winner hours later, and then withdrawing that call.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109310

What has changed about the voting system to make me feel any more secure? Nothing.

Glad to see someone also 'gets it.'

My thoughts exactly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2641375

...HRC had the "audacity" to maintain a slim lead in a race she'd been leading all along...

And nothing short of a 100% hand-count will do.

However, I have to say that I would have been LESS suspicious of an Edwards win, because, on the face of things--on the basis of what the man has SAID--he is a much, much bigger threat to the corporate rulers and war profiteers than Hillary is. I would be more inclined, in the case of an Edwards win, to believe that the voters had outvoted the machines (which I do think is possible). But I would STILL want a fully transparent vote count. And an Edwards win would worry me that Edwards is not who he says he is. The system is so extremely insecure and insider riggable that anyone it awards power to is suspect, yes. It would give me doubts.

But a rightwing controlled TRADE SECRET code vote counting system awarding power (in this case, a preliminary to power) to a pro-corporate, pro-war rightwinger like Hillary--it's just laughable. There is absolutely no reason to trust these results, and every reason to question them.

Diebold was part of the process

And we know elections have been squeaky clean since 2000 :sarcasm:

What part of this is not about A CANDIDATE, but about THE PROCESS are people purposely missing.

Oh and I forgot, NOBODY has gone to jail for electoral fraud (Just OH, Cuyahooga County)

run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, installed all over the country, in the first place (during the 2002 to 2004 period)?

Why?

Why is there any doubt about election results? Why are there MAJOR doubts about election results, based on the egregious non-transparency of the system?

Why?

Answer me that. What is an egregiously non-transparent system run on secret code by Bushite corporations FOR?

finding it hard to follow and to swallow

have gotten it wrong again.

:thumbsdown: with all pre-election polling.

It'd be like when Obama won Iowa, and everybody called "foul" for completely different reasons.

whether it be Repug or Dem.

why are you injecting JE into this fight between Hillary & Obama?

McCain as GOP nominee is the most likely to name Jeb Bush as his Veep, and step up the ME War, which only favors the wet dream of George Bush & Cheney.

The Dem problem with voter fraud will come in the GElection. Although the GOP would like nothing better than to witniss the (adjusted) demise of Hillary Clinton in the November election.
Would Hillary lose to a John McCain/Jeb Bush ticket this fall?
I expect that the powers that control the electronic voter system in this country are already busy insuring that whomever runs against their guy McCain, will be missing a few thousand votes.

You really think the Neopublicans will give up their power because the Constitution calls for it every four years?

My concern is who the GOP winner is in these primaries. Watch those numbers also.

The key people following and investigating this story for years have given us no reason that justifies casting apsersions on their motivations or impartiality - none.

Saying that the "losers are whining" is no more credible than saying "the winners are denying." Less credible, actually, but neither are of much importance when compared to the issue of election integrity.

I have absolute confidence that people expressing reservations about the integrity of the elections wouod be doing so regardless of who won or lost which race. Absolute confidence in that. We all need to demand that same level of confidence in the elections themselves.

any of these candidates who might be "selected" by TPTB, thru a totally controlled system of voting, will necessarily be suspect, until we, the people, demand a complete overhaul of the electoral process.

This issue is basically eight years old, with no resolution, enough that it's a concern even within our own primaries. It's a SYSTEMIC problem.

Edwards (unfortunately) came in at a distant enough third that perhaps him bringing up the issue - NOT AS IT PERTAINS TO HILLARY OR OBAMA but just the fact that the issue is still there - would gain some traction.

Granted, they all should have been addressing it long before - and it sure as shit needs to be front and center before the GE. But, since they didn't - and since it would be "unseemly" for Hillary or Obama to do so at this stage, maybe JRE can step up and include this issue in his platform but not from the perspective of him feeling his third-place finish was affected by voting fraud issues.

If Obama or Edwards would have come in first with hillary ahead in the polls then you'd be whinging your fucking head off.

I'm sure the Hillary fanatics would have been pounding the doors about it....

Whatever....