Since we always talk about polls uncovering fraud, how about primaries?

[passy]

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm
Can anyone explain why in the pre-NH polls Dean had 24% against Kerry's 7%. What factors helped Kerry?
Is it a normal trend in primaries that one candidate's support drops so much after the results from NH are known?
How did it become Kerry-Edwards and not Dean-Clark?

[Wilms]

1. What was the final tally vs. the margin of error.

And I think it's true that winning NH or IO is a big deal.

It's almost as bad as the president being picked by "undecideds" in a handful of states.

[skids]

2. Just think if it had been "Dean Edwards"

:-)

The drawn-out nature of the primaries IMO makes such an argument hard to sell. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if we had the general election in little bits and peices like that. Though I'm sure USCountVotes will get around to analysing what can be analysed about primary elections data, and how primary data can be used to analyse the corresponding general election eventually.

[Sirveri]

3. I totally agree.

I raised this point about two months ago but nobody paid attention. They were all concerned with Nov3. But hey, maybe they were working out the bugs in the primaries, maybe they were a big more sloppy because they figured nobody would bother to look too deep into it. Who knows.

[passy]

4. It seems I heard rumors about Reno in Florida back in 2002.

Could the same thing have happened this time?
Would Dean have had a better chance than Kerry to actually win big enough to counter all the fraud?

[NationalEnquirer]

5. Dean never had a chance..

The "Powers that be" were going to take him down one way or another.

[ottozen]

6. Exit Polls?

[passy]

8. I thought of that too. Do they carry out exit polls for primaries ?

Especially in NH.

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. Whatever happened,

I think the neocons rue the day they ever favoured Kerry with their media coverage, and have been terrified by his landslide election victory. Moreover, if Dean was cheated, it would certainly have been without Kerry's knowledge, however intuitive. But an interesting thought occurred to me (assuming it's not based on ignorance).

Would not the Democratic Party's insistence on paper ballots in future Democratic primaries, be a powerful initiative, and a factor for obtaining that procedure in future presidential elections? It would be great to see them establish the result and check it, as efficiently, expeditiously and uncontroversially as occurs elsewhere in the world.

[passy]

9. kick

to see if anyone has anymore thoughts onthe issue.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. This is just my opinion and I could be waaaaaaay off, but

I think the reason the Dems didn't really give a shit about the evoting machines was because they wanted to use them to get their chosen candidate elected. That would be Kerry. I remember reading a thread on DU about one NH precinct that had NO...ZERO...ZIP...NADA votes for Howard Dean. What are the odds of THAT? Dean was just too popular to have not gotten at least ONE vote in a precinct. I think the Dems used the system. I always thought it was peculiar the Dems took the evoting issue so lightly. IMCPO, it was because they wanted to use the machines to get Kerry in as the candidate. As for Edwards....it was obvious who the "chosen" candidate for VP was. Edwards had 10 times more media coverage than Clark. Dean and Clark were not the chosen team. It's that simple.

As I said before...this is just MY OPINION. Don't flame me. :hi: