New Hampshire Primary: Was it Rigged for Hillary?
The blogosphere is abuzz with conspiratorial whispers alleging inconsistencies in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
According to a report by Presscue, Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama in precincts featuring Diebold voting machines, while Obama bested Hillary in precincts relying on hand-counts. Past revelations of Diebold's vulnerability to tampering, coupled with Hillary's unlikely come-from-behind victory have led some to a grim conclusion: the New Hampshire primary was rigged.
Pulp conspiracy theory? Or cause for concern? Discuss below.
8 comment(s) / Post a Comment
Let's hope this goes beyond the blogosphere
and into the mainstream, because if there's
any truth to it, that's the only way to possibly
force a serious investigation. IS anything
official being done? HAS it been recognized
as being a likelihood, or is it just gossip?
And here we are, lecturing and preaching to
other parts of the world about honesty,
democracy, etc. etc.
I have some speculations but would rather suggest a method for finding the answers. I am eagerly awaiting the responses.
1. Who has the capability to influence the voting machines?
2. What is their motive?
3. How have they reacted to these allegations?
The answers will tell you who is guilty. But I want to hear facts, not venting, plz.
Posted On: Thursday, Jan. 10 2008 @ 7:27PMThe pollsters and media are really reaching for excuses aren't they?
Some people love to hate Hillary in this popularity contest, and unfortunately they seem to like being very vocal about it.
She has always had a large base of loyal supporters and will continue to do so because she is a competent candidate for the job.
There is nothing to this. I'm fairly certain of this statement for two reasons. First, all the counties in New Hampshire use paper ballots. There is a paper trail, unlike counties with solely touchscreen voting.
Second: I don't have hard data for this in New Hampshire, but I suspect that the districts without the machines are more working class districts. Obama has more working class support than Hillary does, so it would make sense that he'd perform better in places with paper balloting.
Hillary's not my favorite Democratic candidate, and I think people are generally wise to pay attention to election irregularities. This isn't one of those times.
Posted On: Thursday, Jan. 10 2008 @ 8:27PMThe discrepancies are, at this point, a coincidence. They are extremely unlikely to have occurred *if* the hand-counted machines were randomly distributed among the precincts in NH, but even then, there would still be a small probability that this could occur within the scope of fair, untampered elections.
If the distribution of hand-count vs. computer voting precincts was seriously nonrandom, then it's more difficult to suggest hanky-panky. For example, what if the Diebold machines were more common in richer, whiter neighborhoods where soccer moms voted more often and Clinton was more popular? No foul. The history of elections is riddled with examples similar to this.
So, maybe someone should check to see whether those hand-counted precincts were a reasonably representative sample of all the precincts in NH. If so, then this result is extremely troubling. But I don't know how we would go beyond probabilities to figure out whether tampering had occurred or not. A computer security person would be the one to finally answer that question.
Posted On: Thursday, Jan. 10 2008 @ 8:31PMThe New Hampshire primaries was RIGGED. Face it people.
Too many coincidences. Too many women are not that stupid, Too many people could not have changed their mind in the last hours, Too many racists could not have been missed in the polls, Too many people could not have lied polsters, All the polls, media, people, camps could not have been wrong.
But we Americans have been taught to believe the system and not question results. Thats why people keep taking advantage. I suspect the recount will come back with only minor difference to protect national integrity.
Posted On: Friday, Jan. 11 2008 @ 7:37PMEven if it wasn't rigged, why was any county in New Hampshire using Diebold machines, when the problems with those machines have been widely reported?
Unfortunately, after the 2000 election the mainstream press seemed to be operating under the idea that reporting on voting irregularities is more dangerous to our country than the irregularities themselves. If the people don't want to hear it, the press doesn't report it.
Posted On: Monday, Jan. 14 2008 @ 8:21PMlook bill stepped in and did what he had to. i believe the outcome was actually
1. obama
2. edwards
3. clinton
exactly like iowa. and the clinton's went "oh sh*t!!!". because that would have been it for them. so bill called a few contact, got the diebold machines changed, and hillary "won". and then they continued with they're "he's BLACK. he's ARROGANT. he does CRACK...blah blah blah". but he still won anyway. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH.
Posted On: Monday, Jun. 30 2008 @ 3:15PM
