It’s taken a while for the results in New Hampshire to sink in. Almost everyone has a theory as to how and why, Senator Hillary Clinton manged to defy them all. I won’t repeat them all here but I will say almost all of them exclude two things (1) old fashioned, hard, on the ground, work on her campaign’s behalf and (2) more voters in New Hampshire simply decided they liked Clinton better than her opponents.
On primary night, pollsters, pundits, and a media that was gleefully tapdancing on her imagined political grave minutes before were rendered both speechless and in some cases overly imaginative as a different picture, one that didn’t include an overwhelming Obama victory, started to emerge. With the results coming in at the pace of molasses and the results still showing a Clinton lead, Chris Matthews at MSNBC theorized about how he wouldn’t be surprised if Clinton gave an early new conference and declared victory (stealing victory from Obama as viewers would then go to bed thinking Clinton had won and miss the real results). But even after Wolf Blitzer announced over the air that the AP had called the race for Clinton, CNN remained defiant, refusing to call the race until Senator Obama was making his way to the podium to give his concession speech.
They say that after denial comes acceptance, but for many, it seems that after denial comes conspiracy. The first cries were heard on Digg.com coming from disgruntled Ron Paul supporters, who, at least on Digg, had already established themselves a reputation for being prone to, shall we say, “creative interpretations” of reality. An article reporting on alleged disparities between votes that were hand counted versus those that were counted electronically was twisted to allege that there was proof of voter fraud in the New Hampshire primaries.
Ron Paul supporters on digg conveniently ignored warnings contained within the article they cited that disparities proved nothing in terms of fraud –especially when the fact that urban areas with higher populations and different demographics often vote quite differently from college towns, rural, and other small areas that don’t have a population that would warrant machine voting and tend to hand count. On Digg, the article and discussion was labeled as “possibly innacurate” –digg’s way of community policing and informing users not to take things at face value.
Apparently, Dennis Kucinich, who is demanding a recount on behalf of Obama not himself, didn’t receive the warning. He’s ponying up the measly $2,000 dollars needed not only for a full recount, but also, a whole lot of innuendo aimed at the “Clinton Machine”, and some sweet, sweet revenge. At that price, it’s got to be the cheapest smear campaign at the Presidential level in recent history.
[Kucinich]…cited “serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors” about the integrity of Tuesday results.
In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that “100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted.”
Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton’s triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.
Nice. Kucinich doesn’t expect any changes but there have been “serious and credible reports” and “allegations and rumors” …coming from –wait for it– the internet! He just wants to point out to you that his pal, Senator Barack Obama, won in areas that were hand counted. Never mind that Clinton drew her support from the two largest cities in the state and that college towns like Durham (total county population of about 8000) and other “towns” like Dixville Notch (population a whopping 75) have little need for electronic voting machines optiscan automated ballot counters and are representative of where Obama drew his New Hampshire support. Also, never mind that even in those places where Obama won out and votes were hand counted Obama’s results were still no where near what the inaccurate pre-primary polls reported. Nope, Hillary cheated –it’s the only reasonable explanation.
For his part, Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlon of New Hampshire, has expressed every confidence in the primary results. Scanlon pointed out how New Hampshire elections operate but he didn’t miss out on the rather obvious implications.
Scanlon said his office had received several phone calls since Tuesday, mostly from outside the state, questioning the results. New Hampshire’s voting machines are not linked in any way, which Scanlon says reduce the likelihood of tampering with results on a statewide level. Also, the results can be checked against paper ballots.
“I think people from out of state don’t completely understand how our process works and they compare it to the system that might exist in Florida or Ohio, where they have had serious problems,” he said. “Perhaps the best thing that could happen for us is to have a recount to show the people that … the votes that were cast on election day were accurately reflected in the results. And I have every confidence that will be the case.”
For those that may not understand what Scanlon is getting at, none of these votes were cast using electronic voting machines but people are under the impression that they were. Some precincts in New Hampshire use optiscan readers, similar to those used to score standardized tests, but there aren’t any computerized electronic voting machines as seen in other parts of the country and there’s a definite paper trail to verify all votes.
So why is Kucinich doing this and who benefits by this recount?
Barring the explanation that Kucinich really does take the internet accounts seriously and is only interested in the general fairness of the election, the first thing that pops into mind is that calling into question the results deflates Clinton’s win in New Hampshire and any subsequent momentum –let’s not forget that Kucinich endorsed Obama in Iowa. It also gives permission for those that believe in the unstoppable do-anything-to-win “Clinton Machine” to let their imaginations run wild and keeps Obama as well as his campaign removed from the whole affair.
However, with the specter of Ohio and Florida looming overhead –where large portions of democratic voters were disenfranchised by long lines, felony lists, alleged electronic vote tampering, and an extensive list of real and alleged republican dirty tricks– the demand of Kucinich for a recount of votes in New Hampshire casts a more sinister shadow.
—————————————————————————————————
MORE INFO ON NH RESULTS:
Check the Votes Current Statement on the Results
Excerpt: “This site was birthed out of a late night whim to try to see if I could make better sense of the numbers I saw coming in from the New Hampshire primaries…..At that time, and ever since then, I have said that I wasn’t sure what these apparent anomalies meant, and made it clear many times that the numbers I presented were NOT enough to prove anything. I offered these numbers up simply to draw more attention so others could research them further.”
Check the Votes NH Dem Hand Count Versus Optiscan Results
You write: “Barring the explanation that Kucinich really does take the internet accounts seriously and is only interested in the general fairness of the election…”
But why should we bar that explanation? Kucinich takes Shirley MacLaine and UFOs seriously. Is it really so hard to believe he’d take internet rumors seriously? And the second half of the explanation you barred — that Kucinich is only interested in the general fairness of the election, is pretty plausible too if you’ve followed his career.
Kucinich is a flake. However, he’s a deeply civic-minded flake, and one who has been raising hell about electoral fairness and voting shenanigans ever since the 2000 debacle, when the more mainstream candidates put it behind them for political expediency. I think he’s probably barking up the wrong tree in NH, but I doubt very much he’s doing it purely to serve Obama.
It’s crystal clear Kucinich would rather see Obama get the nod than Clinton. However, it seems a stretch to imply he’s become Obama’s “hitman” on the basis of actions that are entirely in keeping with his iconoclastic nature.
Hi Betty. First, I’m glad to see you’ve given a link to your own blog. If this is your first blog, welcome! I’ve found your responses here insightful and look forward to Betty Cracker “unfiltered,” so to speak.
It’s my firm belief that no one makes it repeatedly to high political office and remains naive. Kucinich has served as Mayor of Cleveland and been elected six times to represent Ohio in the US House of Representatives. As far as his acknowledgment of seeing a UFO, I think too much has been made of that in an attempt to write him off –other politicians have made much stranger assertions without their sanity being called into question. Now, if he starts saying he was abducted an given an anal probe by “the greys” that’s another matter.
He’s also been more than a little hypocritical in that regard. The Cleveland Plain Dealer as well as various Cleveland area politicos have criticized Kucinich for repeatedly refusing to debate his congressional opponents (both democrats and republicans). I’m not convinced that the flakey but just and ethical image that’s been crafted around him is an apt one at all.
Perhaps. However, challenging the results produces multiple benefits for Kucinich. (1) It promotes his image as someone who is civic minded and against the status quo (implied by challenging the perceived establishment candidate Clinton). That ups his cred with his constituency. (2) It deflates a Clinton win and it goes without saying that Kucinich is no fan of Clinton. (3) It establishes and strengthens the bond he forged with Obama in Iowa. The benefits of that to Kucinich are obvious.
It’s a scenario where Kucinich has nothing to lose and everything to gain.