What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
173 Comments
- inactive, on 01/09/2008, -8/+75War profiteers stand to lose billions or trillions if they don't get their old war horse Hillary in there. That's why war profiteers have invested so heavily in her campaign. They will watch over their investment, democracy, so quaint, be damned. Here's the fraud evidence:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530 - fractalman, on 01/09/2008, -3/+64The polls were right in step in the counties that voted on paper. ***** the damn machines. Insist on paper ballots, and demand to be present when they are counted. Otherwise, why bother voting?
- Vigilo, on 01/09/2008, -11/+69Vote fraud duh. Are we all seriously this lame that we don't all know by now that there probably hasn't been a legitimate election in 20 years damn its probably far worse. All i know is election fraud is alive and well in New Hampshire.
- wild, on 01/09/2008, -2/+44Maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong with media doing live results, spending millions on polls, and declaring winners? Just putting it out there...
- inactive, on 01/09/2008, -4/+30You haven't heard her breath fire and spit venom at one of her jingoistic AIPAC speeches, I take it. She's continue and expand current wars, and start new ones. That's why all the war profiteering companies are investing in her campaign contributions. Check the facts.
- inactive, on 01/09/2008, -3/+29FRAUD! another reason how clinton is like bush.
- ZenMojo, on 01/09/2008, -1/+24I came to the same conclusion. The polls were right about every Republican and Democratic candidate within a 1-2% margin of error (Paul, Giulliani, Romney, and Kucinich were all absolutely dead on with Obama and Edwards being off by 1-2% and Richardson off by half a percent) except for Hillary, who picked up every stray percentage point for a 9 point jump.
MSNBC, luckily, had exit polling and Chris Matthews remarked dumbfoundedly that the exit polls matched the entrance polls. So the polls matched the polls. The polls even matched the actual votes for every other candidate except for Hillary Clinton. So why did Hillary Clinton perform so well?
Well, I took a shot at voter fraud and, surprise, surprise, 81% of votes in New Hampshire were counted on not just electronic voting machines but specifically DIEBOLD machines.
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth ...
Here's testimony from September 2007 on the vulnerabilities to these 81% of New Hampshire votes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ybCaT52Fa6w
Here's an article specifically talking about New Hampshire from 2003, proof that New Hampshire had absolutely no damn interest in fixing their obvious voter security problems.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980 ...
...So, yeah... The New Hampshire miracle, the 9 percent overnight jump that defied both extremely accurate entrance AND exit polls within 1-2% is reasonably suspicious. Of course, it's quite possible that 20,000 people said they would vote one way (not particularly for Obama since Obama performed exactly the way people expected), voted a different way, and then told exit polls they would vote the way they said they would.
It would be easy to bring up undecided voters, but MSNBC said that undecided voters split 38% to 38% between Barack and Hillary, so there shouldn't be any gap at all between Barack and Hillary from undecided voters. And among those who wanted experience, sure, 71% went for Hillary, but they were only 19% of voters. Those who wanted change went 54% for Obama and were in the 40's, a much larger portion of voters.
Any way you look at it, the only reasonable explanation is that people told the exact same lie to pollers immediately before and after their votes or Hillary Clinton convinced 20,000 people in one night to vote for her instead of all of the other candidates, including Obama and Edwards (who are fundamentally anti-Hillary) and then those people lied and said they were voting for all of their other candidates still. - rz8472, on 01/09/2008, -2/+23Also she constantly uses the sex card; its not like Obama constantly uses the race card (hence the lack of endorsement from Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton).
She also started attacking Obama on basically everything a few days before (even bringing up the possibility that he might be assassinated as a reason not to vote for him), but Obama continued to run a positive campaign. Even though Obama took the high road, most Americans are dumb enough to fall for attack politics.
The final possible reason is that the independents thought that Obama was a shoo-in, and instead decided to vote for McCain (or even Paul). They got large amounts of indie votes that day. - TopherT, on 01/09/2008, -0/+17You aren't the only one with suspicions to that effect. Surely though there must be some proof, some witness or statistical proof which must come forward before we get too worked up. (especially telling was the fact that the paper ballots matched the polls much better than the Dibold machines)
- Orderless, on 01/09/2008, -2/+19What if rumors of a rigged Russian election surfaced? Or an Irani one? What about a rigged Iraqi election? My guess is that you'd entertain the possibility. But it couldn't happen here, right? After all... THIS IS AMERICA, GOD DAMN IT.
- paulexander, on 01/09/2008, -2/+17Probably some last minute district was counted up, and changed the results.
She only won by 3%, in one of the most conservative states in the union. Even the Democrats there historically go for the most conservative democrat.
I think the other side of the story is how amazing Obama actually did there. 36% is nothing to slouch at. - inactive, on 01/09/2008, -0/+14better to think with your brain instead of your wallet.
- Eldorian, on 01/09/2008, -1/+14Actually I think the "polls" were the media doing and that this NH election was actually a surge by OBAMA, not a Hillary comeback like the media is portraying.
2 weeks ago Hillary's polls were WAY up above Obama, 10%+ at least.
Obama loses this election by just a few percent - a pretty major surge actually! But the media is going to portray this as a Hillary comeback instead.
I think the poll #'s from the 2 days before the primary was rigged - I don't think Obama was up by double digits at all. I think that was all fabricated by the media to portray that Hillary had this huge comeback that never happened.
It's all how you spin it. And the media is definitely spinning it in Clinton's favor. - Jlaugh, on 01/09/2008, -0/+13Did two women just get sentenced to 18 months for miscounting the ohio election results?
- Rikkochet, on 01/09/2008, -4/+15Or maybe polls aren't actually accurate, despite what pollsters say.
There's a simple reason for it, too, which the research industry continues to refuse to admit: you do not have a random sample. You have a random sample of people with a personality that is willing to participate in public opinion polls. These are ridiculously different things.
If they polled 5000 people but a further 20000 told them to ***** off, all they can really say is that their stats are correct to within X%, then multiply the whole thing by 0.2. - rxbudian, on 01/09/2008, -4/+15It's because the voting machine was miscounting the votes. see http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/New_Hampshir ...
- pimpofpixels, on 01/09/2008, -2/+12Either that crying act worked or it was just a test of emergency election rigging system.
- JJ2K1, on 01/09/2008, -5/+15Vote Counting Fraud, simple as that.
- jaymzz, on 01/09/2008, -2/+12Because it was counted by Diebold. That's friggin' obvious.
- skellener, on 01/09/2008, -1/+11After seeing the movie "Hacking Democracy" I have no faith in our voting system.
- wild, on 01/09/2008, -0/+9The woman who asked it voted for Obama.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/09/2008, -0/+9I'd have to agree with you there.
On the Democratic side, the Media and the Corporate Powers That Be, want Hillary, on the Republican side, they don't want Ron Paul. Kucinich has had to sue to not have his own party leave him off ballots. Progressives are the largest voting group now amongst the Liberals and our top two candidates are Kucinich and Edwards -- and often they are totally ignored in debates and by the media, who are protecting the status quo. - siszam, on 01/09/2008, -2/+11Republicans need to think with more "feelings" and less greed. Maybe then we wouldn't have millions of Americans with no health care, tens of thousands of newly disable vets and thousands of dead soldiers. There are feelings that Republicans and Libertarians are surely missing. They are compassion and love for their fellow man. If you're going to make excuses to let people die or to actively kill them, at least get out of the way of those who want to do something. Stop pretending that you're good for doing evil. And stop pretending that God supports neglecting the sick and poor.
- bigbchew, on 01/09/2008, -4/+13There is also large evidence suggesting voter fraud against Ron Paul.
see http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread325730/p ... + the youtube clip - NeoMatrixJR, on 01/09/2008, -4/+12w/o reading most of the blog I will say this... Facts do not come from blogs. Facts come from sources. List sources, blogs are spam. I skip blogs when sited as sources for this reason.
- inactive, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8( psychological manipulation )
- ZenMojo, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7Reporters' heads are about to explode. They all KNOW she stole the primary. The polls are circumstantial evidence that she stole the primary. All they'd have to do is show every candidate's entrance polling numbers, exit polling numbers, and then say "Diebold counted 81% of the votes in New Hampshire" and the entire country would fall over themselves trying to protest Hillary.
- inactive, on 01/09/2008, -2/+9the reopublicans and the democrats are owned by the same ringknockers who bought this country in 1913.
- HenvY, on 01/09/2008, -17/+24Sigh.
- Goodfeeling32, on 01/09/2008, -1/+8Only the fact that all problems related to voting machines have not been adressed by the governement and by the mainstream media since 2000 means that there is something fishy going on.
Those machines are proven "hackable", so why do governements keep on using them and why are there more and more governements in the world(France) wanting to use those machines?
Because you get the results more quickly? Gimme a ****** break. - WayneCA, on 01/09/2008, -1/+7"Update: MSNBC reporting that the Nevada Culinary Workers, who Russert said were absolutely going to endorse Obama, are now being encouraged by the national to hold off. Looks like Nevada is not a done deal after all."
What kind of bandwagoning is this? You were going to endorse a candidate but you're afraid to because they might not win? This is the problem with politics. Vote for who you agree with, not who you think is going to win! - bolerobell, on 01/09/2008, -1/+7The model for the polls didn't match up to reality of the voters. In Iowa, there was a historic increase in the youth vote (which Obama pretty much owns). In New Hampshire, they saw record numbers of older people and women voting. Hiliary already owned the elderly vote (for the democratic primaries, at any rate) and in New Hampshire, she also got the woman vote... quite possibly because of the whole voice cracking/nearly crying thing that Edwards, etc. Jumped all over.
Personally, I'm mad. I supported Edwards, but that was a stupid thing to do for a very stupid reason. She didn't cry, her voice cracked and it wasn't a big deal, but NO... Edwards had to go and overplay the aggressive part and made her a sympathetic entity. - NeMoD, on 01/09/2008, -3/+9that question was so planted
- cheesehead, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6It is ***** up. I'm not American, but I can't see your country electing a woman or a black man as president. Perhaps that's why these two get all the media and people who don't support AIPAC, the wars and the military industrial complex get none. Dark horse anyone?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6Polls usually track actual votes pretty well. Especially exit polls. The Government doesn't like exit polls anymore because it lets people know when there is fraud.
There NO way that people changed their votes based upon a little emotion out of Hillary. I doubt most people saw it before the voted. - sundancekid503, on 01/09/2008, -3/+9And that's worse than republican fear-based voting?
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6I think most people here are arguing that there was Election fraud... but you can continue arguing with your straw-man Liberal talking points.
- Tenlow, on 01/09/2008, -1/+7I consider myself to be a democrat. I have some views that are very conservative, some that are very liberal, and some that would make your head ***** explode if you understood. Labels don't work. If you called me a liberal I'd probably punch you in the face. Not because you called me a liberal, but because you seem like the type who deserves it.
- ZenMojo, on 01/09/2008, -1/+6Diebold, stealing votes in New Hampshire since 2003.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980 ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ybCaT52Fa6w - ZenMojo, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Everyone was accurate within 1-2% except for Hillary who was off by 9-10%. If we didn't have polls we wouldn't know where to look for fraud.
- inactive, on 01/09/2008, -4/+9You just made his case.
He's suggesting her 'crying' was a ploy - JettaMan, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5He's more an obstetrician. Why call him a gynecologist?
- PhilLesh69, on 01/10/2008, -0/+5There has always been some form of vote tampering. It happens in any election in any country. There are many amoral or immoral people who believe that the end justifies the means, and that they are the end, and the only end, and winner takes all.
It happens in both parties. It comes in the form of slashing "get out the vote" vans' tires. It comes in the form of wiping thousands of voters off the rolls in targetted demographics. It comes in the form of dumping absentee ballots from troops overseas in combat zones. It comes in many forms.
Though, we have entered a new era. An era where one of the largest contributors to a certain president's campaign was the CEO of the company who sells the voting machines that have been hacked by UCLA and Princeton students.
The media is falling over themselves trying hard to divert attention from this. They are blaming themselves, or flawed polling, and whatever else, just so long as people do not start asking questions. Like, why were we told for so long that polling was always so accurate and reliable that you could even detect vote tampering if there was a wide enough gap between polling and actual ballot results? That's the question they hope the majority will not think to ask. - inactive, on 01/10/2008, -1/+6Why people are not in the streets over this is beyond me! The colonists of 1775 would have rioted and hung those responsible if this is confirmed as vote fraud. Instead the news will cover it as a mistake (oops!) and the people will happily fall back into their coma.
- Jlaugh, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4When the Romans had elections they would put sponsor both candidates on either side. Then they'd buy off the voters to vote the way they wanted. When we vote we get a choice of candidates that have been chosen for us.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4I take your comment in a humerous way. But really, we need to bring up the average intelligence of Americans. We also need to teach people why politics and world events should matter to them.
Hey, I hear laughter. I know it's not likely, but that's the solution. - barnseyboy12, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5Vote fraud has already been confirmed. http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=655 The cutting edge of this issue is at http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ which is the site of Bev Harris the woman featured in HBO's Hacking Democracy.
- Codename46, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5***** YOU FRANK LUNTZ
- bjornski, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4That's one thing I like about bradblog.com. They LIST their sources. LOTS of them. All nicely linked and easy to follow for more research.
Many of those links point to data from, and compare it with other info gained from sources that you yourself would probably use (or at least find legit)
Not all blogs suck. This is one of those that doesn't. - shredluc, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4Well i don't care what the primaries end up like. For the election that counts i will vote Ron Paul, even if it is a write in.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is