Thread: Voter Fraud In Sutton, New Hampshire?

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I don't know if it is real or not - and I would not argue one way or the other.

But the fact the media hasn't reported it means little. I can guess why they would not - if it were true.

They didn't mention illegal immigration for about 20 years -

Why it means every thing
After Bushs election vote fraud the media would be all over something like this all over the country

Oh so sorry. Look what I found.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/200 ... hires.html

Originally Posted by Paige

Oh so sorry. Look what I found.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/200 ... hires.html

From paiges link
The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer

New Hampshire's Polling Fiasco
January 09, 2008 12:05 AM

There will be a serious, critical look at the final pre-election polls in the Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire; that is essential. It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.

But we need to know it through careful, empirically based analysis. There will be a lot of claims about what happened - about respondents who reputedly lied, about alleged difficulties polling in biracial contests. That may be so. It also may be a smokescreen - a convenient foil for pollsters who'd rather fault their respondents than own up to other possibilities - such as their own failings in sampling and likely voter modeling.

There have been previous races that misstated support for black candidates in biracial races. But most of those were long ago, and there have been plenty of polls in biracial races that were accurate. (For more on past problems with polls in biracial races, see this blog I wrote for Freakonomics last May.) And there was no overstatement of Obama in Iowa polls.

On the other hand, the pre-election polls in the New Hampshire Republican race were accurate. The problem was isolated to the Democratic side - where, it should be noted, we have not just one groundbreaking candidate in Barack Obama, but also another, in Hillary Clinton.

A starting point for this analysis will be to look at every significant Democratic subgroup in the New Hampshire pre-election polls, and see how those polls did in estimating the size of those groups and their vote choices. The polls' estimates of turnout overall will be relevant as well.

In the end there may be no smoking gun. Those polls may have been accurate, but done in by a superior get-out-the-vote effort, or by very late deciders whose motivations may or may not ever be known. They may have been inaccurate because of bad modeling, compromised sampling, or simply an overabundance of enthusiasm for Obama on the heels of his Iowa victory that led his would-be supporters to overstate their propensity to turn out. (A function, perhaps, of youth.)

Prof. Jon Krosnick of Stanford University has another argument: That the order of names on the New Hampshire ballot - in which, by random draw, Clinton was toward the top, Obama at the bottom - netted her about 3 percentage points more than she'd have gotten otherwise. That's not enough to explain the gap in some of the polls, which presumably randomized candidate names, but it might hold part of the answer.

The data may tell us; it may not. What's beyond question is that it is incumbent on us - and particularly on the producers of the New Hampshire pre-election polls - to look at the data, and to look closely, and to do it without prejudging.

Why it means every thing
After Bushs election vote fraud the media would be all over something like this all over the country

You have a higher opinion of the media than I do, then.

Why would they report the fraud and theft of votes, if it occurred to Ron Paul - a man they have tried to block out, silence, stigmitize and generally ignore? A man they wish didn't exist?

On the other hand, the pre-election polls in the New Hampshire Republican race were accurate. The problem was isolated to the Democratic side - where, it should be noted, we have not just one groundbreaking candidate in Barack Obama, but also another, in Hillary Clinton.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Why it means every thing
After Bushs election vote fraud the media would be all over something like this all over the country

You have a higher opinion of the media than I do, then.

Why would they report the fraud and theft of votes, if it occurred to Ron Paul - a man they have tried to block out, silence, stigmitize and generally ignore? A man they wish didn't exist?

I do not know maybe it a conspiracy

Well, it was not just the Democrats this happened to, and I might add that they are saying on the Ron Paul forum that some of those skewed votes for him are showing up.

Whatever reason they are trying to silence Ron Paul would seem to me to be the same reason they might want to kill a story about voter fraud that affected his numbers.

This is just hypothetical.

I wonder how much of a flap this is causing? If it is much of a flap, true or not, it looks like that in itself, would be a story - at least one tiny, teeny little story?

Well, the Ron Paul chatter in the forums is that they are going after them.

I heard they used Diebold voting machines in NH. Is that true?
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/how- ... 200693.php