Jon Elliot on Air America now - says Obama was ahead in exit polls at 7:00 p.m.

[IndyOp]

- exit polls that virtually all journalists were looking at - but that when polls closed, the networks suddenly called it too close to call. And later -- Clinton won by 3%.

10:15 EST...

[itsrobert]

1. Give it a rest

There was no vote fraud. Hillary played the media with the crying game and won.

[still_one]

4. point one I agree no fraud, point 2 I don't agree. 17% were undecided

before the election, that number is HUGE, and was conviently left out of the MSM analysis

NH has always been a strange state

However, why haven't the Democrats done anything to address the issues of the 2000 election, that is what is disturbing

[rodeodance]

5. I heard Hil cry for our nation----we should cry for it at this point.

....Hillary played the media with the crying game and won.

[still_one]

8. Here is what you are saying, the people in NH are idiots

They did not vote for where the candidates stood, they voted on apperances

I have a different take. 17% were undecided. NH isn't the most liberal state. Those that were undecided had no problem with Hillary's IWR vote or Kyle/Lieberman vote which called for endless war. I have a problem with her war vote, and that is why I won't vote for her.

The people pay for who they elect, and we are paying that price for the past eight years. I believe we will pay even more if a republican wins in 2008

I also believe that we will pay a price if Hillary is the nominee. It took 10 years and over a million deaths before people realized the lies that we were being told about Viet Nam. Let's see if we remember history

[IndyOp]

7. The only evidence that will demonstrate that the machine count is fair -

is a hand count of the paper ballots.

Are you demanding that they ballots not be counted?

Are you saying that citizens with concerns about ANY election should not demand a double-check?

Do you understand that any problem with the machine count could be due to totally innocent error on the part of the voting machine technician or it could be the work of a third party that is not associated with the Clinton campaign?

I am supporting Edwards.

I don't have a dog in the Obama-Clinton fight. I just want ALL elections to be accurate and I want people to stop dissing others who have concerns about election outcomes when we know damn good and well that these systems are error prone and hackable.

[JMDEM]

23. My sediments exactly

GREAT AVATAR!!!

[Stevepol]

25. How can anybody say, "There was no fraud"?

How do you know? With 80% of the vote counted on machines that aren't audited at all?

Nobody knows that. Nobody CAN know that.

That's the reason we don't have a democracy any more.

When the votes are counted in secret without verification IT IS IMIPOSSIBLE TO EVEN HAVE A DEMOCRACY, MUCH LESS A "FAIR" ELECTION.

[still_one]

2. and Elliot also said Randii Rhodes was attacked by a bunch of right wingers

The truth is 17% of the people voting in NH were undecided

The truth is that the media conviently forgot to mention that number, and the truth is the exit polls were right on, elliot is wrong again, and I cannot stand Hillary

What we should be looking at is why Congress has NOT done anything since 2000 about paperless ballots, THAT IS THE ISSUE

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. Clinton is part of the vast right wing conspiracy?

Oh my god, we are starting to sound like nutjobs on DU.

[still_one]

6. The vote was accurate, but Clinton has some major problems with here war votes /nt

[IndyOp]

9. Do you or do not want concerns of Dems in the general election to be taken

seriously if it looks like there were errors in the e-voting systems? If you want concerns of Dems taken seriously in a general election then you should be willing to look at concerns in any election.

Your response -- that Clinton must be part of a vast right wing conspiracy -- is insulting. IF there was a discrepancy between what voters marked on their paper ballots and the machine count, that discrepancy could be due to an innocent programming error or to a third party (not associated in any way with the Clinton camp) that influenced the results.

What we should be doing, in my opinion, is to look at all election results with as unbiased a perspective as possible and to investigate all results that are concerning to voters. If voters demand a hand count and it matches the machine count beautifully then we go into the next election with greater confidence -- and we should still demand a hand count if the results are concerning.

I don't think the discrepancy between the polls and the results is as concerning as the discrepancy between the hand-counted paper ballot counties and the e-voting counties. The discrepancy could be due to differences in how small and large city voters cast their ballots or it could be due to an e-voting error.

I support Edwards. I don't have a dog in the Clinton-Obama fight. I just want the vote count to be accurate and I want citizens with concerns to be treated respectfully.

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. Please. You guys were silent when the unusual amout of Iowans

showed up for cacuses. No proof of residence, bussed in from other states--even bragging about it...where was the outrage? Where is the call for investigation? Or is your concern for fairness only when Obama looses?

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. naw, that's a bum rap

There are plenty of people around here, IndyOp certainly included, who are suspicious of the machines, period. (As am I, although I think the count in NH probably was substantially accurate.)

There also seem to be some Hillary-haters who are believing what they want to believe. People are all different, even when at first glance they seem to be on the same side.

[IndyOp]

15. "You guys" -- I am not part of a nameless, faceless group of people.

I am very, very concerned about voter disenfranchisement and I posted here at DU, prior to the Iowa caucuses that I was concerned that Republicans might cross over to vote for the candidate they think they can most easily defeat to screw up Dem changes in the general election. So your complaint does not stick to me.

I really, really do not have a dog in the Clinton-Obama fight.

I have always posted more about machine problems than voter-disenfranchisement because I used to program touch-screen machines and I know exactly what types of errors in programming could cause a miscount and exactly how they could be hacked.

My concern for fairness is a constant. Even if John Edwards had won and someone showed a potentially statistically significant difference in vote counts on machines versus votes counted by hand, I would stand with the people calling for a prompt hand count of all of the ballots --- even if a hand count might mean that John would lose. The process of fair elections is more important than the product: Any candidate.

It is always the right time to do what is right.

If you can point to evidence demonstrating that people (Republicans and Independents) who crossed over in the Iowa caucuses had a significant impact on the results -- maybe even just by moving Edwards a fraction above Clinton -- then post a thread showing the evidence and I will read it and kick it and recommend it.

[mhatrw]

18. By all means, let's recount Iowa and ensure the accuracy of every election!

You are imputing your own advocacy on others who advocate only fair and accurate elections.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. Indy, FYI, the vote count in NH actually looks pretty good

The "differences" between hand counts and scanners are in line with differences in other elections. These places are very different to start with.

Someone can start saying the elections were all rigged, and the pre-election polls were selectively rigged, and the 2004 recount was rigged... it's down the rabbit hole. Facially, the '08 count looks OK overall (except for those places that reportedly zeroed out some Paul votes, not that that had much impact overall). Of course there could be problems, but they don't leap out.

I wholeheartedly support verifiable elections. I don't in principle oppose a recount of any or all NH ballots. But I think it's really dangerous to cite supposed anomalies in NH as a poster child, so please be aware and cautious.

(Cf. Nancy Tobi, who has some different assumptions, but is now opposing a recount outright.)

[IndyOp]

16. OnTheOtherHand -- can you direct me to data that shows that

the discrepancy between machine and hand counts in New Hampshire is similar to the discrepancy between Clinton & Obama?

I am absolutely willing to go with whereever the evidence takes us.

I can understand that some people are concerned that having a recount and NOT finding a discrepancy -- that it might make it easier to marginalize citizens concerned about election results in future.

What I want is for it to become the norm that when citizens have concerns we recount -- we don't engage in long social-scientific discussions about all of the factors that might have caused an odd result, we simply roll up our sleeves and start recounting. Stop the debate and let the data lead us to a conclusion.

If in doubt, recount. :D

-or if you go for cutesy rhymes...

If in doubt, recoubt. :D

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. I'm trying to figure out the best way to post some now

Here is a picture:

The Hs are hand-count jurisdictions; the Ss are scanner jurisdictions. It takes a little number-crunching to confirm that the Ss aren't consistently above or below the Hs relative to the best-fit line, but that is the case.

I have no problem with having a recount and not finding a discrepancy. My ideal is to audit routinely and almost never find a discrepancy -- that would be success. I just want the claims to be accurate.

[mhatrw]

19. Your "evidence" presupposes that the scanner counts in 2004 were accurate.

Here is the evidence for 2008 NH Democratic primary election inaccuracy:

The pre-election polls, the initial, unadjusted exit polling data and the hand-counted municipalities all showed Obama winning by a significant margin while the machine counted municipalities had Clinton winning by a significant margin.

That evidence is hardly offset by a graph that presupposes the 2004 pro-Kerry, anti-Dean machine votes were accurate.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. not really

Initially I saw the arguments that (1) this year's deviation from pre-election polls was unprecedented, and (2) a divergence between primary results in hand-count and op-scan jurisdictions was anomalous.

OK, so we see the same pattern in two previous primaries, in which the pre-election polls weren't way off.

If you tell me that that doesn't alter the argument, then I have to wonder why. It's fine to posit retrospectively that the counts may've been rigged in past primaries as well -- and maybe somehow the pre-election polls didn't pick it up -- but that's a far cry from (1) and (2).

[mhatrw]

21. Here's the problem. There was even MORE reason to rig the 2004 NH primary.

Remember how much corporate media wanted to get rid of Howard Dean?

Yes, the hand counts favored the anti-establishment "pro-change" candidate in both primaries, but this can be just as easily interpreted as two cases of machine count fraud as it can be interpreted as two cases of machine count accuracy. Remember, there was no hand recount in 2004 whatsover to confirm the machine count.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. no, read my post again

The problem is that in 2004, Dean actually won (narrowly) in the hand-count areas, but Kerry led by double digits (on average) in the polls, as well as winning by 13% or so in the count.

When the Cunning Inside Hack becomes A Conspiracy So Immense, I get off the train.

So far you have presented no reason to believe that the results in hand-count areas should match the results in the rest of the state. I think I've seen at least three New Hampshire denizens try to explain why that was unlikely. You actually have very little on your side of the equation. (Don't even start with the exit polls, unless you're going to tell me that Kerry really beat Bush by double-digits in New Hampshire, too -- and tell me how.)

[mhatrw]

24. Look, IF someone can hack the NH vote, why would they forego

hacking it against Dean in 2004? How in the hell does hacking one NH primary = "Cunning Inside Hack" while hacking two NH primaries = "A Conspiracy So Immense"?

Suppose Dean also narrowly won in the non-hand counted areas last time around. Do you realize how that would have changed the entire narrative of the primaries? IF somebody who is pro-establishment has the ability and desire to hack the NH primary vote, why in 2008 but not 2004? It doesn't make much sense, does it?

As far as this election goes, the pre-election polls, unadjusted exit polls and hand counted municipalities all said one thing while the machine counted municipalities said something else. If that isn't reason enough to reasonably suspect (not prove) machine count improprieties, what could possibly be?

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. golly

I made two numbered points. Would it really take you that long to consider and respond to them both?

[mhatrw]

27. golly

you're cute!

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. do you have an argument?

You have offered no cogent reason to suspect massive miscount in any of these three primaries -- much less all three.

You seem struck by the divergence between hand-count and op-scan results, but you've offered no reason to expect them not to diverge, while qualitative and quantitative evidence indicates that they do.

You seem to give some credence to the pre-election polls in 2008, but you've offered no rationale for ignoring the pre-election polls in 2004 and 2000 -- or, for that matter, the 2008 pre-election polls prior to the Iowa caucuses. (I mean, do you really suspect that Dean won in 2004, or are you just blowing smoke? If the former, do you have any reason?)

You seem to give some credence to the 2008 exit polls, but so far you've offered no response to the fact that the 2004 exit poll in the NH general gave Kerry a double-digit win, contrary to pre-election polls, the vote count, and a 50,000-vote recount. Never mind that NH exit polls also notched double-digit average WPEs in 1992 and 1996.

ETA: Before you asked "what could possibly be" grounds for doubting the machine counts. Anomalous results would be grounds. For instance, if Obama and Clinton's vote counts had actually been reversed on scanners throughout the state, that would create truly bizarre results.

[mhatrw]

29. Are rural NH folks REALLY more liberal/anti-establishment than town & suburban NH folks?

Unless we hand count all the NH town and suburban votes one time, how are we supposed to know for sure?

It would seem to me that if I were a pro-establishment politico with the lots of power, the first and foremost voting machines I'd want in my pocket would those used in the New Hampshire primaries. How about you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. it would help if you responded to points from time to time

I can't tell whether you still want to argue that the 2008 results were anomalous, or whether you've retreated to saying that we just don't know, or whether you're striving for strategic ambiguity.

If the pro-establishment politicos rigged the scanners in the 2004 election, they did it pretty cleverly so that Kerry won by about the same margin as predicted by pre-election polls. (If I were a pro-establishment politico, I wouldn't leave a paper trail if I could avoid it.)

You want to hand-count all the votes once, fine with me. And I favor routine audits. I also favor arguments that make sense.

[Teaser]

10. Exit polls have been shit for years now

Something has changed drastically. They just don't work anymore.

And no, it's not diebold. They don't work at any level these days.

[Kip Humphrey]

12. The MSM avoided the story until the exit polls could be "normalized" to match the reported vote. We

saw it right there on the TV!