The decision to relegate election anomalies to the back burner

[Samantha]

I think this is a very important issue. I feel the mods must have been lobbied by a number of DU members who loathed the questioning of the results. I feel the decision might have been made due to that lobbying. But the fact remains that whenever any anomaly occurs in an election today, whether our candidate benefits or loses, that anomaly must be examined.

While it has been said perfectly legitimate explanations have been made to explain the discrepancy between the polls and the results in the New Hampshire primary, I do not feel satisfied. I believe the explanations are superfluous at best. One of the explanations given was the CNN polling reconciliation comporting to the literal results. It has been publicly known for some time that the polling done for the cable networks is done by one company and shared. Yet Chris Matthews at MSNBC reported several times in his examination that at 5:30 that day he was handled a piece of paper that said according to the exit polls Obama was leading by 7 points. Those results were given him one-half hour before the polls closed. How is that CNN and MSNBC were given totally conflicting information?

And here's a salient fact: Mark Penn owns his own polling company. The internals both the Clintons and the Obama camps projected that same day reflect the same numbers as the company servicing the cable networks. They expected the same results. It's an extremely difficult, if not impossible, statement to believe that no one paid attention to the numbers the last two days before the literal election. No one saw the numbers start to change, it's been proclaimed. I cannot be convinced that any professional pollster servicing Hillary Clinton's campaign failed, I repeat, FAILED, in his professional capacity to examine the so-called fluid numbers in the two days immediately preceding the casting of the votes. ISN'T THAT WHAT HE IS GETTING PAID FOR? Sorry, that explanation coming across the airwaves simply fell flat before it landed.

By here's the bigger point. Republicans I know have been calling me and emailing me suggesting that obviously this election was thrown. The points they make are extremely critical. While I visited this site night before last to ask an innocent question of any NH DU'er (after doing two hours of my own research, I might add), I was immediately insulted by someone suggesting I was attempting to start some S**t here. The truth of the matter was I was simply trying to acquire in an unimpeachable manner straight from a knowledgeable NH DU'er the literal, simple fact of the matter. I attempted to acquire the information not to start a problem here, but to defend the reputation of our party (not the Clintons specifically, but the Democratic party). These people who cannot tolerate the idea of absolute transparency in simply looking at our elections to ascertain exactly why unexpected, unprojected, radically different results happened contrary to even the polling of the candidates themselves -- those people epitomize the qualities of those scoundrels we came to this site to rail against in 2001.

I strongly do not feel I want to belong to a party that feels anomalies in elections happen from time to time and should not be questioned. Looking at the bigger picture, we as a Country are going around the world trying to promote Democracy to third-world countries, yet we suppress legitimate questions within our own borders on those very same issues the people in Kenya are dying for. IT DOES NOT RECONCILE.

To say wait a minute, let's take a closer look at these unexpected results does not necessarily translate to the winning party stole this election. It says there is a high probability some malfunction might have occurred. I am not saying it excludes the possibility the election might have been thrown, but neither am I saying it's obviously so. Those who oppose examination are suggesting we should not look. But that is totally unacceptable (in my opinion).

I wish to stress I am not one of the so-called Hillary Clinton haters. I do not support her but that is because of her position and actions over the past several years. During the time she served as First Lady, I did admire the woman and how she handled herself. I have no candidate in this race at this time. But the issues I outline above are of the utmost importance to me, and I think this decision should be reconsidered with the input of those who support transparency.

After all, the day of the election, the number I heard of undecideds was 20,000. Reducing all the conversations to the lowest common denominator and in simple rounded numbers, it appears to me 3 out of 4 of those undecideds broke for Hillary Clinton out of some sort of sympathy because she cried during a moment of fatigue. That doesn't pass the smell test. And if it smells bad, take off the lid and find out why so you can at least give intelligent responses to the opposing party, the members of which are publicly suggesting what we are even supposed to talk about ....

I really admire the moderators here and appreciate the tough job they have. And I have no desire, absolutely none, to get into any knock out, drag down fights over this issue. But I do think the feelings (okay, pardon me for using that word) of obviously many in the DU balance who did not lobby on this issue before this decision was made) should be taken into consideration.

If any of the positions I have stated here are in factual error, I apologize in advance. I have no desire to offend anyone at this site or misstate any issues. AS A WOMAN, I JUST CANNOT KEEP MY FEELINGS ON THIS ISSUE SUPPRESSED ANY LONGER....:cry:

[robinlynne]

1. We already knew before the election that it was going to be performed on flawed

equipment. Equipment decertified in many states because it failed every single test. Election protection advocates were on planes to New Hampshire BEFORE the election. Not Iowa, Not North Carolina, New Hampshire because of the Diebold tabulator. When the votes do not reflect the polls, you are supposed to check the votes. period. That is not a maybe. That is not an opinion. That is what the polls are for. Not only to get information faster so we can guess at what is going to happen, but as a way to certify the integrity of an election.

[Samantha]

3. Exactly.

We are in total agreement. Thanks for responding. This is not an attack on the candidate who won. It's a questioning, legitimate at that, on the process.

[2rth2pwr]

19. Every person I hear talking about polls says that they are rigged

or the media control them.

[Samantha]

20. But here's the odd thing

The Obama internals and the Clinton internals the day of the election reflected to a large extent the independent published polls the public was absorbing. Clinton's adviser, Mark Penn, owns his own polling company. I think he surely got it right. Clinton had written her concession speech. The only large swing that happened was between most of the published polls and the results ....

Of course, no one knew the exact total of votes that would be cast, but the Secretary of State said he thought the turnout would be a record one. I later heard 500,000 voted, about half of the registered voters, but I do not know if that held up ....

And there's also the fact the previously published polls on the Republican side of the ledger generally held.

[robinlynne]

21. You can forget the polls and just look at the New Hampshire numbers.

The counties counted by Diebold machines have exactly the opposite numbers (flipped numbers, if you will) as the counties counted by hand. again. happened in ohio 2004.

[EFerrari]

2. The Hillary hating is a red herring. It has nothing to do with her

or with Obama, no matter how many times that's repeated.

[Samantha]

4. And that's why it is used -- to distract from the real issue

That issue being -- what exactly happened here. It's a diversion from the dialogue, a classic Republican technique. As Dean was fond of saying, we can do better than that....

[EFerrari]

5. The good doctor was and is right. n/t

[Samantha]

6. I am so sorry he's out of this race

and cannot express a preference for a candidate. I wonder what he is thinking now....

[robinlynne]

7. here here!

[JackRiddler]

12. True, but what we see here is denial more than disingenuity.

People need the firm feel of thinking any rules apply.

[K Gardner]

8. Samantha, thank you. I, too, sat here in front of two computers..

with two TVs in the room and my printer and screen shot going full blast. I'm a veteran of 2000 and 2004 and don't trust anything but a hand count and/or a caucus. I started seeing/hearing the same things you did.. my phone started ringing off the hook.. I thought I was having a bad acid flashback. When I began raising my concerns here (as others did as well), I felt like I'd entered an alternate universe. This is my first election cycle at DU, and I wasn't aware it was crazy to want the votes to be counted or explained if something was "off".

I am not an Obama supporter (but I will be if he's the nom), but I suppose I've been called that and relegated to the dungeon, where I stand here proudly with those who are also concerned with Diebold and voting. To be truthful, it's better off to be "here" than out there.. the flamefest would prohibit any meaningful discourse about the issue.

I hope all is well in NH. I will feel better when the votes are counted by hand. I thank you for your eloquent and insightful post. I salute Dennis for once again being our standard bearer. :hi:

[robinlynne]

9. Yes, a salute to Dennis!

[Samantha]

11. In his own unique way, he is a hero

I think there will always be a place for him, and a prominent one at that, in our party.

Sam

[Samantha]

10. Well, Thank You, K Gardner

I felt I had to come here and post my true thoughts. Can't stay out there and play the role of hypocrite, suppressing my true thoughts and wondering why everyone was not up in arms. To me the issue is not the candidate but the process. Your response makes me realize there is someone else here who thinks exactly as I do, and I thank you for that.

[Psyop Samurai]

13. There are many here who think as you do...

...many of whom stay out of the fray, but are quite observant and appreciative of those able to articulate our perspective, as you have in your excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[Samantha]

15. Thank you, but why are they not speaking out more?

One has to assume many taken aback by the discussion of election irregularity complained about the open discussion of the flawed results. Why have we been relegated to this lesser-frequented forum to discuss this issue when obvious the inference of events such as this have the capacity to reach out in future contests to adversely affect every candidate's campaign. Today, the issue might impact your candidate; tomorrow it might impact the campaign of the mute.

Two days ago Chris Matthews said they would not be discussing this issue of the NH results after that day. Remember, following the 2000 election controversy many news commentators simply did not discuss what happened. Would you have ever thought the suggestion to keep mum on controversies such as this would have ever taken hold on this website with our fellow DU'ers? "many of whom stay out of the fray?" It's mindboggling to me.

Sam

[Kurovski]

14. k&r. (NT)

[chimpymustgo]

16. Thank you for this thread. We have to keep our eyes and ears open and our fight ON. nt

nt

[riqster]

17. Too many people fail to understand just how far down the rabbit hole we've fallen

No one KNOWS who wins an election anymore: no one, that is, but the private companies whose machinery controls the process.

In some case, the games are rigged. In others, the machines themselves are at fault. But we can have no confidence in an election that is devoid of transparency.

Thank you for your well-written and reasoned post.

[Samantha]

18. Tim Russert said last night on MSNBC (twice)

"We just don't know what happened. We don't know."

I think now that the fog of the shock is starting to clear and the lame rationale has fallen by the wayside, that's what many are thinking, both on and off this site.

To tell you the truth, if I were a supporter of Hillary Clinton's and I heard this speculation abound, I would want an investigation. If there is a reasonable explanation, let's hear it (that excludes Hillary's crying during that last debate and no one checked the polls following that debate prior to the voting). I would want the clear, undebatable explanation, or if the count is flawed, I would hope for the fault to lie with the voting machines and the contractor so that my candidate's credibility would not hang in the balance. After all, I believe that many African-Americans who are left with no credible explanation in hand will suspect the worst and defect to Obama's side of the aisle out of sheer principle. That's just my thought.

And thank you for your response. It's always gratifying when one takes a lot of time to put together a thread for someone to take a moment out and send a word of thanks.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. exactly. all she would have to do would be to say - look, this

is how it happened - We knew we were 8 pts down on Monday. We knew we had to make up
10 pts (8 plus 2 margin lead). What we did was target 27,000 people (10 % of the 275,000
votes cast) in a massive GOTV. We got those unpolled, unlikely voters out. And they ALL
voted for me. Not a single to Edwards or Obama - despite their enthusiastic crowds. That is
how we won.

Trouble is, it's pretty damn hard to get 27,000 unlikely voters to the polls in one
day, isn't it...

[althecat]

23. You are not alone. However there are some reasons for the suppression..

.. not particularly good ones I might add but they are reasons. Meanwhile here we are discussing things so its not all that bad.

[maryallen]

24. Here, here ...

Beautifully stated.

The changing tone on this board, combined with the apathetic reaction to distinctly questionable election results in NH, is quite alarming.

[Samantha]

25. Thank you.

I sweated this one out, and it's nice to get a compliment.