Please give me another explanation for this. Polling in the last few days before the primary as well as exit polling showed Senator Obama winning the New Hampshire primary over Senator Clinton. Exit polling also showed Senator Edwards in a solid third place.
Senator Edwards's finish statewide matched the polling. Senator Clinton and Obama's didn't. Various theories have been floated as to why.
Andrew Sullivan pointed to
this analysis, which provides an extremely disturbing data point. In New Hampshire, some precincts are hand-counted. The others are Diebold machines. In the hand-counted precints, Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's counts matched the exit and pre-primary voting, with Senator Obama winning strongly. In the Diebold-counted precincts. Senator Clinton won by significant numbers.
Please give me another explanation for this discrepancy. Please. Because this is a disaster. If it's Clinton's machine doing it, it's desperately stupid to have done so so sloppily - even if they trust the useless, fawning media not to talk about it. But frankly, I think it's too obvious and accordingly too stupid. On the other hand, if it's the GOP's - and if they've covered their tracks too well for it to be tracked back to them - it's a master stroke, setting up the Democratic party for internal war. In
either case, if true, it destroys whatever confidence might have been remaining in the American elections system.
I have said many, many times that Diebold machines are trivially hackable fraudboxes that need to be banned. They need to be gone. This
has to happen. Now.
ETA1: Petition to that effect
here. It's not enough. But it's a start.
ETA2: At least one other report (see comments) says that the exit polling was within margin of error of final results. This does not match what I saw beforehand and the morning of the primary, but I didn't pay attention throughout. It also does not match what I read in coverage afterwards, but without the actual raw data in front of me...
ETA3: Here's the breakdown of the spread:
GOP, which shows a strong machine-count gain for Mitt Romney, and
Democratic, which shows a strong machine-count gain for Hillary Clinton at specifically the expense of Barak Obama, primarily in small and medium-sized towns, which are broken out. Also, see my comments
here.
ETA4: Regarding to the media report mentioned below (and above, in ETA2); the report does
not actually claim that the exit polling matched the machine counts. It notes that there were large numbers of undecideds and unsures
going in to the election, and that Obama got his pre-election polling percentage, and that therefore the result is reasonable. It doesn't really address exit polling discrepancies at all. It further states a few key facts: 1) Exit polls said undecideds were split between Obama and Clinton. However, 2) as noted above, Obama got his pre-election polling numbers - almost exactly. (Also, Edwards also got his pre-polling numbers, iirc. This is not mentioned in the report, and I could be remembering wrong). This implies that
all undecideds went to Clinton,
and either lied about it to exit pollsters
or undecideds switching to Obama exactly balanced out Obama's losses of support shown in earlier polls.
Current Mood:
horrified