View Full Version: *** Obama Won Hand Counted Vote By 6.3 Points!

Loose Change Forum > The Lounge > *** Obama Won Hand Counted Vote By 6.3 Points!


Title: *** Obama Won Hand Counted Vote By 6.3 Points!
Description: New Hampshire Primary Satistics...


Question. - January 14, 2008 04:30 PM (GMT)
It seems Obama did relatively well in New Hampshire Hand Counted precincts as compared to precincts with (optical scanning) Machine Counts. In fact, Obama won the Hand Counted vote by 6.3 points...

Overall Hand Count verses Machine Count shows the following:

H - Clinton 15,817/46,734 = 33.84%
H - Obama 18,744/46,734 = 40.10

M - Clinton 96,789/238,800 = 40.53%
M - Obama 86,260/238,800 = 36.12%

It should be noted than All large precincts used Optical Scan Machines to count votes, so no variation among large precincts can be determined. Even so, Obama's numbers have always polled better in more densely populated areas. And as we saw In Iowa, Obama did much better among urban voters: http://www.dailyyonder.com/huckabee-wins-r...oes-best-cities

So, how is it that in New Hampshire Clinton did so much better than Obama in Urban areas? How was it possible for Obama to do so much better than Clinton in medium and small precincts, where his support is generally weak? Are Hand Counted votes vs. Machine Counted votes a Significant Variable?


Correcting for demographics, dropping small precincts below 400 votes, and large precincts over 1100 votes. There is significant overlap between Hand Counted and Machine Counted in the 400 - 1100 vote range. These results are:


H - Clinton 34.19%
H - Obama 40.00%

M - Clint 37.30%
M - Obama 37.21%


I would have expected much of the difference of Hand Counted vs Machine Counted to go away limiting the sample to medium precincts. However, there still seems to be a significant variance from the overall results: Obama did much better in the medium sized precincts that were Hand Counted than he did in the medium sized Machine Counted locations.

And once again, I would have also expected Obama's support to be relatively hedged in medium precincts, given his support tends to be more urban - In fact, the opposite proved true.

While not conclusive, these numbers certainly suggest a Significant Variable may have been Hand Counted vs. Machine Counted Precincts, which if true, would indicate possible vote manipulation.

Precinct Numbers:

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1...imary-71294.xls

zyko148 - January 14, 2008 06:27 PM (GMT)
OT
I read somewhere that Obama's foreign policy advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski.

look-up - January 14, 2008 06:29 PM (GMT)
I don't like Obama, but I will say that he got cheated. Although in the way that these types (globalists) play politics, I'm sure he feels he lost fair and square.

Ron Paul's people said that hand counting happens mostly in rural areas, so why would a Black man WIN in rural areas, and LOSE in more urban areas?

It defies logic.

alive and still talking - January 14, 2008 08:31 PM (GMT)
male shovanists :)

Runner70 - January 14, 2008 09:55 PM (GMT)

Good Analysis.

alive and still talking - January 14, 2008 10:05 PM (GMT)
with overalls on, and a pichfork

thank you :P

look-up - January 14, 2008 10:08 PM (GMT)
and if the roles were reversed and Obama had been down, yet somehow managed to win and the paper ballots showed something drastically different than the electronic ones?

would those who might call a foul be racists?

of course not.

Hierosis - January 15, 2008 03:57 AM (GMT)
Honestly, I haven't seen much in terms of definitive evidence that there was any vote fraud on Hillary's side. Some of these cases are certainly circumstantial, but I don't think they stole the vote. I think that mass PR in a 24-hour news cycle left many voters feeling as if they were suddenly seeing another side of Hllary Clinton and dug it.

I'm hardly soem big Hillary supporter, but I don't see any "there" there.

datman - January 15, 2008 04:01 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (look-up @ Jan 14 2008, 06:29 PM)
I don't like Obama, but I will say that he got cheated. Although in the way that these types (globalists) play politics, I'm sure he feels he lost fair and square.

Ron Paul's people said that hand counting happens mostly in rural areas, so why would a Black man WIN in rural areas, and LOSE in more urban areas?

It defies logic.

I agree it makes no since

PHARAOH1133 - January 15, 2008 04:28 AM (GMT)

Question. - January 15, 2008 04:19 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Hierosis @ Jan 14 2008, 10:57 PM)
Honestly, I haven't seen much in terms of definitive evidence that there was any vote fraud on Hillary's side.  Some of these cases are certainly circumstantial, but I don't think they stole the vote.  I think that mass PR in a 24-hour news cycle left many voters feeling as if they were suddenly seeing another side of Hllary Clinton and dug it.

I'm hardly soem big Hillary supporter, but I don't see any "there" there.

How is it possible for Obama to do so amazingly well in his consistently worst demographic (rural voters), when he lost the overall election in such a massive decline.

In fact, Obama won the rural vote, but more importantly, he overwhelmingly won the Hand Counted vote.

Hypothetically, this scenario would be like a Republican losing the General Election against a Democrat, even though the Republican wins the notoriously liberal states of California and the Northeast...

alive and still talking - January 15, 2008 04:27 PM (GMT)
I would not put voter machine fraud or even hand counting fraud past corrupt republican supporters, where I live, you can not vote and be sure the person in charge will count that vote properly, they are all republican bush bastards

Question. - January 15, 2008 09:12 PM (GMT)
Thanks for the replies.

However, I was hoping for some constructive criticism.

Or - Are most people in this form satisfied that Obama's high numbers in rural and machine counted precints is suggestive of vote fraud?


alive and still talking - January 15, 2008 09:16 PM (GMT)
other things have bothered me, such as the way the crowds positioned behind
candidates during gatherings are orchestrated.

milkman accused me of being racist, but I am not, I simply prefer hillary as the most experienced for the job. I would vote for anybody if it meant keeping republicans out of the white house, I am just glad hillary is there.


this is my response to milkman:
QUOTE
i am not racist,


sorry if you got the wrong idea , I'm not racist
I simply brought up the fact that they are profiling
racial balance in the crowds for national TV

everybody is neatly scattered through the crowd as if
they are preparing for a choir contest, arranged  by color, sex, height
and even bodyweight. noticed the crowd behind obama on cspan in reno

like a patchwork quilt
I blame it on obama's campaign manager

vote counting fraud is NEVER eliminated from our reality, the last 2 elections were definitely rigged.

Hierosis - January 16, 2008 03:29 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Question. @ Jan 15 2008, 04:19 PM)
QUOTE (Hierosis @ Jan 14 2008, 10:57 PM)
Honestly, I haven't seen much in terms of definitive evidence that there was any vote fraud on Hillary's side.  Some of these cases are certainly circumstantial, but I don't think they stole the vote.  I think that mass PR in a 24-hour news cycle left many voters feeling as if they were suddenly seeing another side of Hllary Clinton and dug it.

I'm hardly soem big Hillary supporter, but I don't see any "there" there.

How is it possible for Obama to do so amazingly well in his consistently worst demographic (rural voters), when he lost the overall election in such a massive decline.

In fact, Obama won the rural vote, but more importantly, he overwhelmingly won the Hand Counted vote.

Hypothetically, this scenario would be like a Republican losing the General Election against a Democrat, even though the Republican wins the notoriously liberal states of California and the Northeast...

I understand, but all we're doing is hypothesizing. I see no clear evidence that conclusively proves that Hillary's campaign rigged the vote. Even if there was a issue with the electronic voting, you can't immediately point your finger at someone, no matter how much they benefit, with no clear proof.

alive and still talking - January 16, 2008 03:36 AM (GMT)
hillary just took half the votes in michigan and technically the dems are not even supposed to be there, obama is close behind.

251,000 hillary :)
278,000 romney
uncommitted dems171,000 (obama and edwards pulled their names from ballot
mccain 199,000
ron paul 45,000 FOURTH PLACE behind huckabee :)

These are hand-counted caucus votes

the news media does not even mention the democrats and their votes,
which is significant. maybe you are right, the media is govt controlled

Hierosis - January 16, 2008 03:41 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Question. @ Jan 15 2008, 09:12 PM)
Thanks for the replies.

However, I was hoping for some constructive criticism.

Or - Are most people in this form satisfied that Obama's high numbers in rural and machine counted precints is suggestive of vote fraud?

No. Because you'd have to be relying on elitist polling and media coverage who created that impression for things to change.

alive and still talking - January 16, 2008 03:46 AM (GMT)
there is no doubt that there will be voter fraud, which is why the dems will have to get a landslide vote to overcome that factor

Question. - January 16, 2008 01:31 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Hierosis @ Jan 15 2008, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE (Question. @ Jan 15 2008, 09:12 PM)
Thanks for the replies.

However, I was hoping for some constructive criticism.

Or - Are most people in this form satisfied that Obama's high numbers in rural and machine counted precints is suggestive of vote fraud?

No. Because you'd have to be relying on elitist polling and media coverage who created that impression for things to change.

Thanks for your input.

However, I was thinking more of technically based criticism.


Hierosis - January 16, 2008 06:08 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Question. @ Jan 16 2008, 01:31 PM)
QUOTE (Hierosis @ Jan 15 2008, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE (Question. @ Jan 15 2008, 09:12 PM)
Thanks for the replies.

However, I was hoping for some constructive criticism.

Or - Are most people in this form satisfied that Obama's high numbers in rural and machine counted precints is suggestive of vote fraud?

No. Because you'd have to be relying on elitist polling and media coverage who created that impression for things to change.

Thanks for your input.

However, I was thinking more of technically based criticism.

I'm not sure what you mean. Personally, I don't put ANY stock in polls or the media's obvious interest in promoting Obama. Thus, I had no expectations in this race and could easily see the votes note accurately reflecting the media coverage.

I'm willing to look at the idea of funny stuff with the vote tallying, but I don't see how you can name Hillary's campaign the prime suspect. Do you feel they were responsible for the uncounted Ron Paul votes too? If not, who was?

alive and still talking - January 17, 2008 02:13 AM (GMT)
cnn interviewed the hand -picked test group of voters during the IOWA caucus calling them a fair cross-section of iowa voters. they all had an IQ below 85.

you are right. polls do not mean anything.

mynameis - January 17, 2008 10:57 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (alive and still talking @ Jan 17 2008, 02:13 AM)
cnn interviewed the hand -picked test group of voters during the IOWA caucus calling them a fair cross-section of iowa voters. they all had an IQ below 85.

you are right. polls do not mean anything.

Yep, pretty soon people'll be remembering Mensa as we do the Neanderthals.

Question. - January 17, 2008 04:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Hierosis @ Jan 16 2008, 01:08 PM)

I'm willing to look at the idea of funny stuff with the vote tallying, but I don't see how you can name Hillary's campaign the prime suspect.  Do you feel they were responsible for the uncounted Ron Paul votes too?  If not, who was?

Did I name the "Hillary's campaign as the prime suspect"?

I'm more concerned about the emperical data:

Given Obama won by nearly 7% of all the Hand Counted vote, especially in rural areas where his support is generally hedged, certainly the result is suggestive of vote manipulation.

I'm also not entirely convinced that a recount is adequate, because of the unknown chain of custody, among other things.

From this point, if we are looking for "responsibility", we must investigate the potential and possibility for machine malfunction or viruses (and related issues), along with a comprehensive recount.

Hierosis - January 18, 2008 03:28 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Question. @ Jan 17 2008, 04:04 PM)
Did I name the "Hillary's campaign as the prime suspect"?

No, but a lot of people seem to be. Who else would have had a reason to and/or benefitted?




Hosted for free by zIFBoards