New Hampshire Redux

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 01:57 PM

I note that the term 'conspiracy theory' has been invoked in this thread. This term has become the standard ad hominem attack (as well as smear tactic) of those who are either trying to stifle debate, or to suppress investigations. It is, nevertheless, not an argument.

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 02:04 PM

"Bruce, Hillary isn't already in office and this is a primary, not an election."

So the level of fraud that is "definite proof" in convicting Bush is not applicable???



LH,

MY comment was that there is a double standard here, in that Clinton gets away with numbers that were "definite proof" that Bush had stolen the election. It is the double standard that I am pointing to, not the actual fraud- I DO NOT KNOW if the models used are accurate or not in these predictions, only that those here who criticise Bush are strangely silent when a Democrat does the same thing.

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM

Oh, some of them are, BB. Yes. They use a double standard.

I have no difficulty criticizing Democrats, and noting evidences of Democratic corruption....but I'm sure some people here do, because they are very partisan, and they only wish to go after Republican targets. That's their prejudice.

Then there are other individuals who only seem to criticize Democrats and they overlook Republican misdeeds. DougR has a bit of a problem that way, I think, although Doug is certainly a gentleman...but he's very partisan.

I think both those parties are corrupt and rotten, and they both probably engage in fraud quite frequently. (whenever they figure they can get away with it)

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: PoppaGator
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 06:06 PM

I'm pretty sure that the NH primary was NOT a winner-take-all affair. Each party designates a certain number of delegates per state, elected by district. Hillary's plurality of the statewide vote does not mean that she gets all the NH delegates to the convention pledged to her. In fact, Obama actualy had more delegates than she did at one point late in the evening, despite trailing in the statewide totals. That would be because he won more districts.

The overall popular vote is important for public relations, as a factor in the ongoing campaign. But as far as pledged votes toward the eventual nomination, candidiates who finished reasonalbly close to the lead and to each other, in both parties, came out fairly close to even in the contest for delegates, which is what will eventually decide both nominations.

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 06:13 PM

Clinton got 11 delegates
Obama got 12
Edwards got 4
3 are unpledged

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:57 PM

"Clinton got 11 delegates
Obama got 12"

And Clinton WON???

No wonder the Democrats can't win an election- they cannot even count!

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:10 PM

Bruce, go try to figure out why BEFORE you step in it.

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: bankley
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:14 PM

sounds like some 3rd world country trying to have their first ever elections... where's Jimmy Carter to watch over it ?

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:40 PM

Jeri - When you say that a candidate got so and so many delegates from a given state...does that mean that those delegates will and must vote for that candidate at the party's leadership convention? Or is it optional?

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:47 PM

I don't believe there's anything, other than integrity and reputation, binding delegates to a candidate. If someone pulls out of the race, their delegates will wind up voting for another candidate. I don't remember hearing about delegates just switching teams on their own, but there are other folks here who'd know far more than I know about this.

Oh yeah - I don't really understand how Obama ended up getting more delegates than Clinton, but I didn't say anyone was stupid.

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 11:07 PM

More cloak and dagger in New Hampshire (from the same link as before)...

From Bev Harris:

"I think it will be helpful to get photographs or video of the ballots WHILE STILL AT TOWN CLERK OFFICES and it will also be very helpful for citizens to follow "Butch and Hoppy".

Yesterday when we did so, they were speeding at one point and we were fairly challenged to keep up with them. We did, thanks to the skillful driving of Susan Pynchon. There was a dark green SUV waiting for them in a rural location. They stopped, one of the transport team jumped out, went to the driver of the green SUV, said something, then the transport team headed one direction and the green SUV the other. Clearly, he had been waiting there to hook up with the transport team. There may be a perfectly logical explanation for this, but I think it is important to witness and/or video where the transport van goes and who they meet up with.

Here on this site, it was posted that the ballots in New Hampshire are transported by the state police. That is incorrect. I asked more questions and they said that a liason from the sec. state office accompanies the state police. That is not true. Here's what is true: "Butch and Hoppy" who are represented as working for the secretary of state or the archives, depending on who you are talking to, pick up ALL the ballots in New Hampshire. They drive a white state van. A single member of the state police drives behind them. He can't see a darn thing about what is going on in that van.

Chain of custody - This isn't "the New Hampshire state police" moving the ballots. In fact, I'm not sure the Butch and Hoppy Show is legal, if the law says the ballots will be moved by the state police.

The chain of custody during transport is two guys named Butch and Hoppy. That's it.

My antennas would be up now for:
1) Ballot chain of custody, rendezvous points, capturing evidence of what goes into the transportation pipeline and what comes out.

2) I expect there will be efforts to persuade candidates to shortcut their recounts.

ALSO:

Note that Republican ballots have been being transported with Democrat ballots, that they are sometimes in the same box, and that as the Democrats do their recount the Republican ballots are being unsealed with no witness from the Republican campaign. They are taped up before going back to the ballot vault, but last night, Republican ballots were stored outside the vault just as Democrat ballots were."

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 01:36 AM

Update on the investigation into the lack of a chain of custody in the New Hampshire recount...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71456.html?1201055989


I was particularly interested to read about the differences between the way things are done in New Hampshire and the way they're done in some other places, including West Virginia, California, and Canada. I'm confident that it's possible to adopt a uniform protocol for the whole country that can significantly increase the security of our elections processes. All that's needed is enough people who prefer to live in a democracy rather than a kleptocracy getting involved in pressuring the system to make the needed changes.

Subject: RE: New Hampshire Redux
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 11:18 PM

Here's a video of the evidence found showing the lack of a chain of custody in the New Hampshire recount...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHL_YMBolRs