Wednesday, January 9, 2008

31 Votes


The Republicans Will Always Have Hillary

I hate to be a Dowd-ing Thomas, but a Hillary Clinton nomination may be the only thing that could sweep the GOP into the White House for another term in November. Hey, don't look at me! Even Republicans say so...

Vermin Supreme

Hah! Check out the Republican Ballot from New Hampshire. I wonder how many votes Vermin Supreme received?

Oh man! He's AWESOME.

New Hampshire District Admits Ron Paul Votes Not Counted

Here we fucking go again!

From Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet:

The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count.

As we reported earlier today, an entire family voted for Ron Paul in Sutton, yet when the voting map on the Politico website was posted, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.

Vote fraud expert Bev Harris contacted the head clerk in Sutton, Jennifer Call, who was forced to admit that the 31 votes Ron Paul received were completely omitted from the final report sheet, claiming "human error" was responsible for the mistake.

Two or three votes not counted could be a plausible mistake - but 31 votes for one candidate?

I'm sure this is going to make other voter district workers come forward with similar debacles. We'll just have to wait and see. Really makes you wonder even more about that Clinton victory too.

New Hampshire Primary

In response to The Arm's latest post, I just wanted to throw out a few reasons why New Hampshire turned out the way it did, and I don't think it's because it was rigged.

1) Clinton's own internal polling showed her 11 points behind and she was prepared for a defeat. They even cancelled the big hall they'd reserved for election night and moved the event to a smaller venue.

2) NH is an open primary and you needn't be a democrat to vote in the democratic primary, nor need you be a replublican to vote in the republican primary. So the following theories apply:

--If Obama and McCain were competing for the independant vote and the polls showed Obama with a double-digit lead, the Indies decided Obama didn't need their support and chose instead to support McCain and defeat Romeny and Huckabeee.


--Republicans were so disenchanted with their candidates they realized that the only way they can win in November is if the Democratic candidate is the polarizing and widely reviled Hillary Clinton. They chose to vote FOR Clinton instead of tussling in a futile republican primmary (as I've written before: We're going to have a brokered Republican one will win the nomination outright).

3) And then there's the possibility of the "Bradley Effect". Basically this theory posits that people when polled will say they'll vote for an African American, but when the time comes to vote, and no one is watching or judging them (as in a caucus), they can't bring themselves to vote for a black man.

4) Clinton's moment choking up was the first time she came across as human. I have to admit, when I saw that video, I found I had sympathy for the woman, something I didn't think was possible. If it could have that effect on me, just imagine the kind of effect it had on people who don't have a vast storehouse of negative feelings about Hillary.

Finally, Ron Paul's finish was almost exactly where he finished in Iowa. I expect he's got aroun 8-10% support in the country. Very vocal and well-financed support, yes, but not a majority, and not a ceiling he's likely to crack. 9iu11ani's improved numbers might have more to do with Paul being excluded form the Fox debates, and not a neo-con conspiracy with diebold. Ron Paul still has a big roll to play in this election, because at a brokered convention, if he's got 8-10% of the delegates, he'll be in a position to make some serious demands.

The Fake New Hampshire Primary?

Either the pollsters and the main stream media were grossly miscalculating the results of the New Hampshire primary because the people they polled lied to them over and over (but only on the Democrats side) or something is really fucking fishy with the votes in New Hampshire. I mean how could the pollsters be that wrong. I understand the attraction to the idea that the "media was wrong". Believe me, I think I fell for that trap at first. I agreed with all the douchebags on MSNBC last night saying in perfect unison, as if the script was handed down from the penthouse suite, that "we were wrong" or the "pollsters got it completely wrong".


That's it? That's the only hypothesis? I mean across the board from Chris Matthews to Brian Williams to Tim Russert to Keith Olbermann, it was the same thing,"We were wrong". Well what about asking if there was any fraud or vote tampering. Fuck, its not like we've had any experience dealing with that in this country. The results just look a little too perfect for the establishment. Hillary going from a poor third place showing behind Obama and Edwards to a major victory in Hew Hampshire? The Clinton campaign couldn't have gotten a better gift. Everyone was saying they were toast if she lost, so she HAD to win. John Edwards with only 17%? Hmmmm.

And on the other side you got Ron Paul neck in neck with Rudy "9/11" Giuliani at 9%. The one thing the anointed neo-con candidate could not have happen to him in New Hampshire is another loss to Ron Paul. Looks like that didn't happen for him....but barely. He was only above Paul by 1%. Hmmmmmm. All I'm saying here is maybe we should ask what a lot of people are probably thinking today.....was this primary fixed?

Looks like Brad Blog is thinking the same thing...