Comments on: New Hampshire’s Polling Fiasco http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/ As The Media Watches The World, We Watch The Media Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:26:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Robert M. Cerello http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9705 Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:45:46 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9705 Objective and independent-minded reporters have a Costitutional obligation. This is to cover "news" Their legal obligation is: not to brainwash victims into postmodernist alternative attitudes, opinions and beliefs, so they'll think they've heard news but really haven't. Only Reality matters in this context; ad anything that interferes with the apperception of what is real by the individual voter warps, poisons and destroys the process of informed and rational choice which is an "elction". Charisma does not matter. Innuendo can't matter. We're not electing a false claim nor a hairdo, a smile nor a suit. Lies, fake-promise slogans and lying promises can't count. False polls and horse-race- type speculations, endorsements, context dropping analyses and public news tsars' media hype and misleading headlines can't count. What has tyo matter is SCIENCE--what the candidates know, define, say their prioritized agenda will be, and their statement of how they expect to accomplish those ends and how honestly they present what they are and what they stand for to the citizens (who will be the future beneficiaries or victims of their course of real actions) count. Until we REGULATE the formin which non-fictoinal statements have to be presented, and separate opinions from attested fact, from standards-based evaluations and from categorizing definitions and full proofs--until that happens, purveyors of lies and myths and attitudes will continue to be given access to the scientific level that only truth tellers have the right to access. Until we do this hard job of policing our would-be tyrants and of making our elections something other than a poll-driven exercise in fakery (abetted and further warped by silly-minded by incompetent newstwisters), we cannot never have a real election. We'll see New Hampshire's three-day fiasco on a broader empire-wide scale, in this former nation of regulations and rights. This appalling exercise in horse-race, insider guesswork, misrepresentation, character assasssination, swiftboating lies and futility has to be cleaned up; I say it is an Augean Stables of crime, lies and nonsense. News is what candidates do, say, and premise, their history, their character and their campaign appearances. Newsmen are supposed to cover the election, not their own biases; polls interfere with that process. I say they have to be done away with entirely. if one person is influenced to vote differently because of any true or false "poll", rather than the prior voting of a substantive sort ad the facts presented and evidenced, then something has been introduced into the campaign which destroys its purpose--one man, one vote. Reporters are to cover what candidates do and say and have done and have enacted and have promised and delivered--anything else they might do is fraud and totalitarian fakery carried out at the expense of truth as understood by one mind at a time--by each voter. One mind thinks, evaluates, votes and suffers good or bad results from such a choice. One suggestion---in any primary vote, let's have the voter rank the candidates in order of acceptability. 5, 3 and 1 for the top three finishers. Vote for your party, yes. Only this way can we really have a meaningful election and not some brainwashed choice of our next public-interest totalitarian fraud anointed by newshacks, media tsars' lies and the falsity of "leading candidate" centrality where there is no such thing, one individuals presenting themselves as candidates. Objective and independent-minded reporters have a Costitutional obligation. This is to cover “news” Their legal obligation is: not to brainwash victims into postmodernist alternative attitudes, opinions and beliefs, so they’ll think they’ve heard news but really haven’t. Only Reality matters in this context; ad anything that interferes with the apperception of what is real by the individual voter warps, poisons and destroys the process of informed and rational choice which is an “elction”. Charisma does not matter. Innuendo can’t matter. We’re not electing a false claim nor a hairdo, a smile nor a suit. Lies, fake-promise slogans and lying promises can’t count. False polls and horse-race- type speculations, endorsements, context dropping analyses and public news tsars’ media hype and misleading headlines can’t count. What has tyo matter is SCIENCE–what the candidates know, define, say their prioritized agenda will be, and their statement of how they expect to accomplish those ends and how honestly they present what they are and what they stand for to the citizens (who will be the future beneficiaries or victims of their course of real actions) count. Until we REGULATE the formin which non-fictoinal statements have to be presented, and separate opinions from attested fact, from standards-based evaluations and from categorizing definitions and full proofs–until that happens, purveyors of lies and myths and attitudes will continue to be given access to the scientific level that only truth tellers have the right to access. Until we do this hard job of policing our would-be tyrants and of making our elections something other than a poll-driven exercise in fakery (abetted and further warped by silly-minded by incompetent newstwisters), we cannot never have a real election. We’ll see New Hampshire’s three-day fiasco on a broader empire-wide scale, in this former nation of regulations and rights. This appalling exercise in horse-race, insider guesswork, misrepresentation, character assasssination, swiftboating lies and futility has to be cleaned up; I say it is an Augean Stables of crime, lies and nonsense. News is what candidates do, say, and premise, their history, their character and their campaign appearances. Newsmen are supposed to cover the election, not their own biases; polls interfere with that process. I say they have to be done away with entirely. if one person is influenced to vote differently because of any true or false “poll”, rather than the prior voting of a substantive sort ad the facts presented and evidenced, then something has been introduced into the campaign which destroys its purpose–one man, one vote. Reporters are to cover what candidates do and say and have done and have enacted and have promised and delivered–anything else they might do is fraud and totalitarian fakery carried out at the expense of truth as understood by one mind at a time–by each voter. One mind thinks, evaluates, votes and suffers good or bad results from such a choice. One suggestion—in any primary vote, let’s have the voter rank the candidates in order of acceptability. 5, 3 and 1 for the top three finishers. Vote for your party, yes. Only this way can we really have a meaningful election and not some brainwashed choice of our next public-interest totalitarian fraud anointed by newshacks, media tsars’ lies and the falsity of “leading candidate” centrality where there is no such thing, one individuals presenting themselves as candidates.

]]> by: Mark Tele http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9682 Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:10:36 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9682 my comment above did not get posted properly - here it is again; Ann Catherine and anyone else "harping" that "People are not obligated to share their voting intentions with anyone" need to realize that many Americans believe that the Florida 2000 & Ohio 2004 elections were rigged. I know of NO ONE who voted for Bush but told a pollster they were voting for Gore. I have however, seen plenty of documentation that that election was stolen. Here's part of the solution; elimination of the electoral college and elimination of Diebold-type voting machines. my comment above did not get posted properly - here it is again;

Ann Catherine and anyone else “harping” that “People are not obligated to share their voting intentions with anyone” need to realize that many Americans believe that the Florida 2000 & Ohio 2004 elections were rigged. I know of NO ONE who voted for Bush but told a pollster they were voting for Gore. I have however, seen plenty of documentation that that election was stolen. Here’s part of the solution; elimination of the electoral college and elimination of Diebold-type voting machines.

]]> by: Mark Tele http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9681 Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:06:53 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9681 Ann Catherine and anyone else "harping" that "People are not obligated to share their voting intentions with anyone" need to realize that many Americans believe that the Florida 2000 & Ohio NO ONE who voted for Bush but told a pollster they were voting for Gore. I have however, seen plenty of documentation that that election was stolen. Here's part of the solution; elimination of the electoral college and elimination of Diebold-type voting machines. Ann Catherine and anyone else “harping” that “People are not obligated to share their voting intentions with anyone” need to realize that many Americans believe that the Florida 2000 & Ohio NO ONE who voted for Bush but told a pollster they were voting for Gore. I have however, seen plenty of documentation that that election was stolen. Here’s part of the solution; elimination of the electoral college and elimination of Diebold-type voting machines.

]]> by: Anna Catherine http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9661 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:28:41 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9661 No need to find out why polls are wrong. Stop harping on them. At best they are anyone's guess. People are not obligated to share their voting intentions with anyone. No need to find out why polls are wrong. Stop harping on them. At best they are anyone’s guess. People are not obligated to share their voting intentions with anyone.

]]> by: Marilyn http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9654 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:58:12 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9654 The main discrepancy was in the Obama Clinton contest. Those Diebold op-scan machines are the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy. Diebold favors Hillary - hand count for Obama. 2008 New Hampshire State Primary Results A Closer Look At The Count TOTAL VOTES FOR DEMOCRATS: 286,139 All averages and counts are calculated when the page loads, using vote data sourced from: www.politico.com Table Comparing Machine vs Hand Counts Candidate Total Votes Avg. Overall Votes by Machine Avg. Overall by Machine Votes by Hand Avg. Overall by Hand Machine VS Hand Votes by Unknown** Avg. Overall by Unknown Clinton 111,827 39.081% 82,108 39.618% 20,190 34.908% 4.709% (13,475 votes*) 9,529 45.266% Edwards 48,386 16.910% 34,927 16.853% 10,170 17.584% -0.731% (-2,093 votes*) 3,289 15.624% Gravel 397 0.139% 273 0.132% 80 0.138% -0.007% (-19 votes*) 44 0.209% Kucinich 3,858 1.348% 2,609 1.259% 1,055 1.824% -0.565% (-1,617 votes*) 194 0.922% Obama 104,030 36.356% 75,251 36.309% 22,335 38.617% -2.308% (-6,604 votes*) 6,444 30.611% Richardson 13,154 4.597% 8,975 4.330% 3,209 5.548% -1.218% (-3,485 votes*) 970 4.608% Other 4,487 1.568% 3,108 1.500% 798 1.380% 0.120% (343 votes*) 581 2.760% TOTALS: 286,139 207,251 57,837 21,051 *Votes are tentatively won or lost with the assumption that the machines are conferring advantages or disadvantages. **Unknown towns (where the data doesn't specify counting method) include: Harts Location, Manchester, Waterville, Wentworth's Location Table Comparing Votes vs Town Size Candidate Votes Small Towns Avg. Overall Small Towns Votes Medium Towns Avg. Overall Medium Towns Votes Large Towns Avg. Overall Large Towns Clinton 7,103 34.259% 30,444 37.569% 74,280 40.288% Edwards 3,664 17.672% 14,518 17.916% 30,204 16.382% Gravel 29 0.140% 112 0.138% 256 0.139% Kucinich 358 1.727% 1,184 1.461% 2,316 1.256% Obama 8,055 38.851% 29,664 36.607% 66,311 35.966% Richardson 1,206 5.817% 4,049 4.997% 7,899 4.284% Other 318 1.534% 1,063 1.312% 3,106 1.685% TOTALS: 20,733 81,034 184,372 Small Town has less than 500 votes. Medium Town has between 500 and 1,500 votes Large Town has more than 1,500 votes BlackBoxVoting.org results were are astonishing: Results tallied for 209 out of 236 of the municipalities. By Percentage Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Diebold Machines 53.23% 46.77% Hand Count 47.47% 52.53% By Votes Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Diebold Machines 82860 72807 Hand Count 18898 20912 By Number of Municipalities Won Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Diebold Machines 54 33 Hand Count 43 77 About 81% of the votes will be "counted" by the Diebold machines. The main discrepancy was in the Obama Clinton contest.
Those Diebold op-scan machines are the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy.

Diebold favors Hillary - hand count for Obama.
2008 New Hampshire State Primary Results
A Closer Look At The Count
TOTAL VOTES FOR DEMOCRATS: 286,139
All averages and counts are calculated when the page loads, using vote data sourced from: www.politico.com
Table Comparing Machine vs Hand Counts
Candidate Total Votes Avg. Overall Votes
by Machine Avg. Overall
by Machine Votes
by Hand Avg. Overall
by Hand Machine VS Hand Votes
by Unknown** Avg. Overall
by Unknown
Clinton 111,827 39.081% 82,108 39.618% 20,190 34.908% 4.709% (13,475 votes*) 9,529 45.266%
Edwards 48,386 16.910% 34,927 16.853% 10,170 17.584% -0.731% (-2,093 votes*) 3,289 15.624%
Gravel 397 0.139% 273 0.132% 80 0.138% -0.007% (-19 votes*) 44 0.209%
Kucinich 3,858 1.348% 2,609 1.259% 1,055 1.824% -0.565% (-1,617 votes*) 194 0.922%
Obama 104,030 36.356% 75,251 36.309% 22,335 38.617% -2.308% (-6,604 votes*) 6,444 30.611%
Richardson 13,154 4.597% 8,975 4.330% 3,209 5.548% -1.218% (-3,485 votes*) 970 4.608%
Other 4,487 1.568% 3,108 1.500% 798 1.380% 0.120% (343 votes*) 581 2.760%
TOTALS: 286,139 207,251 57,837 21,051

*Votes are tentatively won or lost with the assumption that the machines are conferring advantages or disadvantages.
**Unknown towns (where the data doesn’t specify counting method) include: Harts Location, Manchester, Waterville, Wentworth’s Location

Table Comparing Votes vs Town Size
Candidate Votes
Small Towns Avg. Overall
Small Towns Votes
Medium Towns Avg. Overall
Medium Towns Votes
Large Towns Avg. Overall
Large Towns
Clinton 7,103 34.259% 30,444 37.569% 74,280 40.288%
Edwards 3,664 17.672% 14,518 17.916% 30,204 16.382%
Gravel 29 0.140% 112 0.138% 256 0.139%
Kucinich 358 1.727% 1,184 1.461% 2,316 1.256%
Obama 8,055 38.851% 29,664 36.607% 66,311 35.966%
Richardson 1,206 5.817% 4,049 4.997% 7,899 4.284%
Other 318 1.534% 1,063 1.312% 3,106 1.685%
TOTALS: 20,733 81,034 184,372
Small Town has less than 500 votes.
Medium Town has between 500 and 1,500 votes
Large Town has more than 1,500 votes

BlackBoxVoting.org results were are astonishing:
Results tallied for 209 out of 236 of the municipalities.

By Percentage
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 53.23% 46.77%
Hand Count 47.47% 52.53%

By Votes
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 82860 72807
Hand Count 18898 20912

By Number of Municipalities Won
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 54 33
Hand Count 43 77

About 81% of the votes will be “counted” by the Diebold machines.

]]> by: Franklin L. Johnson http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9652 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:25:16 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/01/09/the-numbers/#comment-9652 When are we going to wake up in this godforsaken nation? There's only one reasonable explanation for a dozen point overnight turnaround for Hillary: The machines and the results were tampered with. Why would anyone think polls can be perfectly in order for the Republicans but somehow got tangled up for the Democrats? This makes no sense. The Bush/Clinton two-headed demon is getting out of control. It's no longer about justice and democracy for these people. Their basic rule is to defeat the enthusiasm of new voters by any means necessary. If they have to cheat, well, they think this is "good" for democracy. Obviously, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When are we going to wake up in this godforsaken nation? There’s only one reasonable explanation for a dozen point overnight turnaround for Hillary: The machines and the results were tampered with. Why would anyone think polls can be perfectly in order for the Republicans but somehow got tangled up for the Democrats? This makes no sense. The Bush/Clinton two-headed demon is getting out of control. It’s no longer about justice and democracy for these people. Their basic rule is to defeat the enthusiasm of new voters by any means necessary. If they have to cheat, well, they think this is “good” for democracy. Obviously, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

]]>