Diebold, Clinton, Obama, Paul, New Hamshire, Fraud

I don't know what happened. Here's what I do know.

1. Voting machines, like those made by Diebold, have serious flaws that potentially could allow unauthorized people to reprogram them and to change the outcome.

2. Diebold has been a strong supporter of George W.

You'll notice that these links don't go to traditional media and they aren't that new. That raises other questions about why others aren't working on this now. Maybe Google pushes the traditional media back behind the blogs, but that doesn't hold up for other issues. But I trust my son's judgment on these things and he's strongly opposed to voting machines because they have too many problems.

3. Obama was leading by around 8-10% in the polls before yesterday's election in New Hampshire.

4. He was several percentage points behind Clinton after the election.

Polling of Democrats just before Tuesday's vote gave little warning of the New York senator's comeback, with most underestimating her strength. A USA Today-Gallup Poll gave Obama a 13-percentage point lead, putting her at just 28 percent. Another by CNN, local television station WMUR and the University of New Hampshire had Obama up 39 percent to 30 percent.

It wasn't just the pollsters. Journalists covering the candidates on their final full day of campaigning described larger, more energized crowds attending Obama's events than Clinton's. And from the Clinton camp came word of campaign shake-ups, as well as a moist-eyed candidate vowing to struggle on regardless — an appearance some analysts said helped humanize her and win supporters.

Exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks offered no obvious clues. Interviews with voters in the Democratic primary showed those who said they'd made their choice within the last three days — including those who said they'd decided on the final day — split about evenly between Clinton and Obama. (From Associated Press)

Reputable polls have a margin of error of 5% or less. This change is beyond that margin of error. Other candidates were predicted accurately. Though the Ron Paul camp is also grumbling apparently.

I've heard, on mainstream media, tended to blame the polls:

• It's hard to predict black candidates in biracial elections because people lie to pollsters about how they will vote.
• It was the Independents and women (Listen at least to 2:32)
  
• The pollsters need to reevaluate how they got it wrong
  

But it is only on the blogs that I'm hearing people raise the issue of voter fraud. I'm not saying it was voter fraud. I don't have omniscience. But, given what we know about the machines, and given the difference between the polls and the outcome, certainly one of the possible explanations people should be looking at is that someone tampered with the machines.

Now, it gives me some small comfort to think that the Clinton folks might have tampered with the machines, simply because it would mean when things get really dirty heading for the November election, that the Clinton camp might be the only Democratic opponent who could fight back against the Republicans in the dirty tricks department. Of course that is a pretty cynical perspective and it would be better to prevent the dirty tricks, but these, by their nature tend not be revealed until after the victor is comfortably in office. We should have laws that invalidate the election if it is proven the victor won by deceit and deception out of his campaign. Of course, that would lead to the other candidate trying to sabotage his own candidacy in the name of his opponent.


But another explanation would be that someone else messed with the machines. I still am not sure who the Republicans want to run against. Whatever they say is calculated. Truth is a strategic choice, not a moral choice. You can listen to Allen Raymond here talk about the book he wrote now that he's out of prison for tampering with the 2002 New Hampshire election. It's all so matter of fact. There's nothing wrong. He happened to get caught and paid his dues. It's not about morality, he says, it's only about winning.

Rove's advice to Obama on how to beat Clinton for instance. Is that because they hate her so much? Or because they are afraid of Clinton and want Obama to take her out? Or they want to give that impression because they really want to run against Clinton? Is it easier to defeat a black man than a white woman? Is this particular woman encumbered by enough negatives that they think it would be easier to defeat her? If they want her as the candidate, then they could have been behind tampering with the machines, if that happened.

I guess what irks me, is that when I google New Hampshire primary voter fraud all I get is blogs. Why do I have to go to a New Zealand site to get this story?

Given the huge discrepancy between the polling data and the vote, why isn't voter fraud one of the possibly explanations in the mainstream press? It isn't like they don't jump on other undocumented blog reports.

[More on this topic added here and here.]