Shame on us for feeding the Rethuglican spin machine (and for the lurkers for feeding the flames here).

You can try and argue till you are BLUE in the face, but there are 48 states to go, and to get pissy with the voters in NH today with Super Tuesday less than a month away???


What are you folks going to do, pop a gasket if the primaries don't go your way next month? You probably wouldn't support Hillary anyway, so why be pissy today???


Just keep this in perspective, the Thuglies are laying traps for Obama, from his heritage to his name, and all you complainers do is feed the flames.

Enough, move on the primary is OVER, work for change, not pain.

:wow:

:eyes:

I'm just saying that we shouldn't wait until something looks fishy. Electronic voting is fishy by definition - we've had 4 years to dog NH about their system.

I expect we're doing what we can.

There were a number of threads on DU complaining about the voting system in NH.

Just saying.

ETA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2590833

How many points (votes) separated Clinton and Obama? What the fuck is the big picture here???


Grow up, bitch at the Thuglicans not at us. Find something better to do with your time than foster this bullshit.

Now, tell me to grow up again. Tell me a clean election in November is bullshit. Go for it.

the last 3 elections. This should have been cleared up long ago.

and 2004 was stolen.

The problem is a simple one.

For some, 'fraud' has become a word meaning not real chicanery, but 'an outcome I dislike and did not expect'. Since this meaning is not as yet very widespread, and even when understood properly may mean different things to different people, it often leads to confusion when the word 'fraud' is employed. Many people think on encountering the word that the standard definition is being used by the speaker, when in fact, it is the new and limited usage only that the speaker had in mind. Translated into standard English, the rash of claims there was 'fraud' in the Democratic Primary in New Hampshire actually read "I was surprised by the outcome of the New Hampshire primary, and do not like the outcome of the New Hampshire primary, and wish the New Hampshire primary had had a different outcome, one I would have approved of myself." The temptation to compress all this down into one syllable is obvious....


"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between the lightening and a lightening bug."

Show me the votes.

Please free me from the nightmare of yet another Republican theft.

Press the line that Sen. Clinton's victory in New Hampshire was the result of criminal fraud....

In this case.

the outcome of this contest.

This morning, I called my mom and let her be happy for her candidate. ("Hi, Mum. How did your candidate do last night?"). She was so thrilled to see a woman win a primary.

We should all be able to enjoy this race on that level. It is our right.

But it isn't reality. And I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to sit here as blindly as I did in 2000 and wait until I'm presented with the fact of a Bush before I start asking the best questions I can.

You can't work for change until you look hard and long and see how degraded our elections have become. You can't work for change until you can assess the need for change. You can't work for change unless you are willing to see problems and deal with them.

This isn't about a primary. Most of us are willing to work for the Democrat, no matter who that turns out to be.

This is about the general election, run on the same system with no transparency, with no real accountability, with no monitors. I don't want to go three for three. Do you?

In OTHER countries, when the final and especially the exit polls diverge from the reported results, we usually assume that the polls were right and the election fraudulent

but in the US -- it's just tin foil hat thinking and conspiracy theory ....................................

It was the polling done prior to the election that did not match, which can be explained by several possibilities. I personally heard many interviews with women on NPR who were planning to vote for Obama but changed their minds the morning of the election. If the Exit Polling didn't match I would right there beside you.

Wanna know what the problem is, no matter WHO WON?

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

As a scientist, I guess when I saw a clear problem in the results of an experiment I designed and ran, I should have gone back and tweaked the base data to fix it, massaging the raw data to match my experimental results?

Other than the fact that such post-experiment tweaking is considered unethicality of the highest magnitude, and I couldn't have gotten a job sweeping up the lab after being busted for something like that, it souns like a great idea and the right way to handle troublesome raw data.

:silly:

Maybe you should just call me a Sore Loserman! and tell me I lost, get over it!

2004 was a very different situation. YOu really are grasping at straws and attempting to twist my words.

In 2004 the results of the exit polls were practically the reverse of what was being registered by the machines. Entire precincts seemed to be the reverse of prior voting trends. Add to that the dirty trick the pukes were using against urban voters and minority voters and there was a CLEAR case of fraud.

In NH you have some PRE primary polls that were skewed by the large number of unlikely voters.

If Obama thought the numbers were off he could have asked for a recount and there WOULD be a paper trail.

I strongly believe we need to revamp how we vote and make it more transparent. However in the case of NH I do not see a case of fraud and frankly, neither did Obama's campaign.

Your insinuations about me were nasty and un-justified.

Fear of having the Might Wurlitzer pointed at you, and hearing the cries of "Sore Loserman!" that would "further damagae the party" and further discredit the voting system which, taken to a logical conclusion, could lead us to a Kenya-situation where frustration boiled over.

And if you want me to be techincally correct and more pleasant in my response to you it is that you dismiss the self-correcting Exit Polls of 2004 as if it couldn;t happen again, rather than the more likely idea that it was integrated into the process in 2004 "to prevent embrassaments".

After all, we wouldn't want to have a Kenya here, now would we, at least that's how many of our rulers see it, IMO. They would just want to hold it together a little longer.

Much better just to keep signing off on increasingly unbelievable, uninspecatble and non-transparent voting, whcih is the path of least resistance.

You can say I twisted your words, and in truth, perhaps I did a bit. But the point is that you blew off the 2004 Exit Polls as a one-time thing, rather than what we have witnessed since 2000, which is the integrating of Bushie Electoral Fraud into the Exit Polling Process to avoid "embarrassments" like in 2000 and 2004.

And where were the Exit Polls in 2002? Mysteriously off-line. And yes, it was "Reverse Dewey vs. Trumans" all around.

THAT is what you blew off. Apologies if I tied it all together in a rhetorical bow about which you are technically correct.

Stop focusing on the polls, the polls.


Focus on the fact that THREE times as many Democrats and Independents turned out to vote for

OUR

candidates than the Repukes.

Jesus it was a victory for all of us.

Now where have I heard that before? It sounds vaguely familiar...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2643951

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2640000

no insult to banana republics... intended

After all who cares about TRANSPARENT elections... since Cleeland never happened, hell nobody got convicted for hanky panky at Cuyahooga CO, which was poo poed as well.

:-)

None. Zippo. Zilch.

The private companies that counted 80+% of the votes, and the private companies that adjusted the exit poll numbers, THEY KNOW what happened.

YOU do not. I do not.

THAT, if you like is bullshit. Please stop fighting against election reform.

You have proof the "primary election" was fraudulent, bring it here, otherwise lets talk about making clay pots, because that is how relevant your argument regarding the primary is.

For now, enjoy your blissful ignorance.

Show me the fraud, show me how Hillary stole NH, no hyperbole or bullshit bring your proof.

I DO say that election reesults in America cannot be verified, no matter who wins or loses. That is a factual statement.

Stop fighting election reform.



Edited to add link.