New Hampshire - More Vote Theft??
I woke up this morning wondering about what happened in New Hampshire and the Light Bulb went on:
On Air America they mentioned that only certain people knew the results from the exit polls in New Hampshire. I'd like to know if the exit polls were ever announced and compared with the announced vote tally? There was such a discrepancy from all the pre-election polls (9?) and 81% of the ballots were optically scanned. (Were these scans precinct counted and then called in? -- This is important to maintain legitimacy as is good software.) Did Hillary's moment of tears really make an impact or have voters been ripped off again? Exit Polls vs Announced Count -- IMPORTANT TO KNOW.
I've asked this of Rob Kall at Opednews.com and have emailed Teresa Hommel of Where's the Paper and plan to email Thom Hartmann, especially after the chilling information I just now read on Bradblog -- we're talking serious problems again, folks. Read Bradblog and let's all stay on top of this again. I will apprise you of any light I hear.
Peace hugs,
Kate Anne
Labels: election fraud, Election2008, Elections2008, exit polls, fascism, vote count
posted by Kate Anne @ 9:13 AM
2 Comments:
MK, I don't know. I too was surprised at the results...but voter theft? I just don't know.
What happened in NH, between the polling and the results, is worthy of study. But voter fraud is only one possibility, and I would not be quick to conclude that it was that as opposed to something else.
There is also the "Bradley Effect" -- that white voters may tell pollsters that they intend to vote for a minority candidate, but then don't actually follow through with it once in the privacy of the polling booth. Perhaps the reverse of that could be extrapolated to women as well -- women who sd they would vote for Obama, but when the moment of truth came, could not resist voting for the first woman with a real shot at the nomination.
I remember when David Duke ran for statewide office in Louisiana. His polling numbers were low, presumably because many voters would not admit to a pollster that they really did support a racist former member of the KKK. But once in the privacy of the polling booth, they voted their prejudice.
Obama's support tends to be with younger voters. Younger voters tend to not turn out as strongly as older voters. Younger voters might have thought Obama had it in the bag, and then decided not to turn out as strongly as they did in Iowa.
There are lots of possibilities. I think they are worthy of study. Short of some smoking gun that these machines were hacked or something, I would not leap to any conclusion that the discrepancy must be fraud.
more commentary here:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/how_wrong_were_the_polls.php
There were conflicting polls going into the election as well. They were all over the place.
I wanted Obama to win, I wanted Hillary to lose. I am disappointed Obama didn't do better. Even though Edwards isn't my guy, I would have preferred to see him do better than he did.
Hillary pulled out the tears, Bill was out there stumping. A lot of people still love Bill. There are so many things at play.
Post a Comment
<< Home