Dirty Tricks" We know who really won.......

[kster]

Community Blogs

By Christopher - Apr 23rd, 2008

If you were planning to vote yesterday in the Pennsylvania primary you had another thing coming as reports of voting machine problems in all of Obama's stronghold precincts. Several machines were malfunctioning in the city, leading one local community leader to allege "dirty tricks" were the cause.

Many residents trying to cast ballots yesterday found long lines and broken machines and intimidation across the region.

Six of ten machines were down at a busy Delaware County polling site. It took 103 people 8 hours to vote in Upper Darby, which is heavily populated by immigrant and first time voters. Many of those freshly-minted voters had difficulties using the six machines that still functioned. "Hell of a day for six of the machines to go down," said one poll worker.

In South Philadelphia, voting machines were broken at 4th and Ritner, smack dab in the middle of a Obama strong hold. "The dirty tricks have begun," said John Lucas, spokesman for the election board, who sees a conspiracy.
A local elections official interviewed on MSNBC acknowledged some problems early Tuesday morning, but he said those had been resolved before midday. He denied reports that only one or two voting machines were functional in some predominantly African American neighborhoods.

"We had a few problems early on. We always do," Fred Voight, a deputy commissioner in Philadelphia told MSNBC.He called reports of machines damaged and broke down "flat out untrue" and said "everything is working smoothly in the city as we speak." The interview aired around 11:15 a.m. Tuesday.

The Justice Department announced Monday that it would have monitors in Philadelphia to ensure compliance with voting laws. "Well if i say so myself they haven't done to good a job to let this tragedy occur.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Christopherwalls/gGCVyR

[blue sky at night]

1. How do you say....

it will happen again in 2008? I live over here in Ohio, where at least we know ahead of time that there is going to be election stealing.

[jackson_dem]

2. Why hasn't Obama himself bought the "I lost because it was rigged" conspiracy theory?

Does this mean he won't fight if the rethugs rig the GE?

[kster]

3. I agree , Why does Obama, Clinton both along with McBush remain silent,

about the secret vote count machines?

Kind of a mystery to me, but I guess Job security beats the truth to these guys/gals. Now theres the Conspiracy theory that we have, Why do they all remain silent?

conspiracy theory
NOUN:
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

The voting machines are not a conspiracy theory they manipulate the vote count I'm not seeking to "explain a disputed fact" its out there in the open for all to see

1)Are you voting on paperless machines, Why? Theres nothing to secure that the machine counted the ballots correct.

Thats not a conspiracy theory, thats a fact, and its happening in front of your eyes.

The voting machines that let you scan a paper ballot, are you allowed to hand count them scanned paper ballots at the end of the day at the precinct? If not, why not? Thats not a conspiracy theory, its a fact.

A conspiracy theory is something that can't be proven, this is happening right before you very eyes it can be proven, if you just look.

[Bonn1997]

4. Great question

I'd say either Obama (a) does not know or care about exit polls or (b) does not have the courage to fight for election integrity. Either option is very bad. And I am (or at least was until recently) an Obama supporter.

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. remarkable

I think it's kewl how many "election integrity advocates" spend their time trashing Democratic candidates.

Here's a mind-blowing thought: maybe Obama disagrees with you about exit polls. Gosh.

[Bonn1997]

6. You wanna repeat the same debate

in every thread? You're obsessed with proving that everyone's wrong and you're right about exit polls.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. actually, I didn't even express an opinion about exit polls

I questioned your assumption, or assertion, that Obama either doesn't know about them or isn't willing to fight for election integrity.

If you can't be bothered to support your arguments attack on the likely Democratic nominee, fine, but no point in pretending that it's all about me.

(edited for clarity)

[BradBlog]

8. Obama hasn't fought for Election Integrity...

He has not done so, so far. Particularly when he had the opportunity, for just $2000, since he was close enough to Clinton in NH, to have an entire state recount for no more than 2 measly thousand.

Given that the results were diametrically opposed to every pre-election and exit poll, and given that 80% of NH's ballots were counted on optical-scan systems known (famously) to be hackable (the very same ones used in the hack seen in HBO's "Hacking Democracy"), he should have asked for the hand count to assure that every vote was counted and counted accurately.

As we later learned, after Dennis Kucinich paid to count *some* of those ballots on the D side, and Albert Howard paid to count *all* of the ballots on the R side, every vote was not counted, nor was it counted accurately.

Obama blew an important chance to stand up for the voters at that moment. Sorry, but thems the cold, hard, documented facts.

[Bonn1997]

9. Great point

I like Obama a lot but it's sad that he won't stand up for fair elections. NH was a great opportunity. He must be getting advice from OTOH.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. shrug

So, are you on record that in your opinion, a full recount in New Hampshire would have "assure(d) that every vote was counted and counted accurately"? Even I am not convinced of that -- and I never gave over a website to the saga of Butch and Hoppy.

It verges on meaninglessness to say that the results were "diametrically opposed to every pre-election and exit poll." Setting that aside, you've offered no rationale for the necessity of a full recount. And setting that aside, you've offered no reason why Obama should have paid for it. Not that he couldn't spare the money, but the "sore-loser" optics might have cost him the nomination -- for a recount that likely would have changed no minds on any side. About the only rationale I can find for that is that BradBlog says so.

[BradBlog]

14. Same old same old anti-democracy screed from "OnTheOtherHand"

So, are you on record that in your opinion, a full recount in New Hampshire would have "assure(d) that every vote was counted and counted accurately"? Even I am not convinced of that -- and I never gave over a website to the saga of Butch and Hoppy.

Of course not. Though since you have a history here of doing whatever you can to fight against transparent, participatory democracy here, allow me to thank you for at least showing the courtesy (for of change) of asking me to clarify that record. Perhaps I should have added the word "help", as in "help assure that every vote was counted and counted accurately."

And yes, he should have done so.

It verges on meaninglessness to say that the results were "diametrically opposed to every pre-election and exit poll."

Actually, it verges on meaningless to say that "Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama in a surprise victory" when the votes were "counted" on specific Diebold vote counting systems known to be both exceedingly error prone, easily manipulated, and used in a setting which allowed for such easy manipulation without detection (barring an actual count of secured ballots, and forensic examination of the memory cards which were destroyed immediately after the election, in violation of federal law.)

Setting that aside, you've offered no rationale for the necessity of a full recount.

Right. I've offered rationale for the necessity of a count, not a recount. I think ballots should be counted, not run through faulty, easily hacked machines without bothering to actually count a single one of them for accuracy.

And setting that aside, you've offered no reason why Obama should have paid for it.

Because standing up to try to assure votes are counted and counted accurately (at the measly cost of just $2000) would have helped him immeasurably, and helped all of us who care about democracy (I won't necessarily include you amongst that crowd.)

Not that he couldn't spare the money, but the "sore-loser" optics might have cost him the nomination

...Or won it for him over night, as a hero who finally stands up for what the people want: to have their votes counted, and counted accurately.

-- for a recount that likely would have changed no minds on any side.

Thanks for your magical, baseless, predictions. Any advice on who'll win the World Series this year? I'll run straight to my bookie.

About the only rationale I can find for that is that BradBlog says so.

Then I imagine you're not looking very hard for that rationale. In fact, I suspect you're working much harder to not find any.

Keep up the bad work.

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. well, BradBlog, this is your shtick

I watched your ad hominem attack on Phil Klinkner after he dared to cross you on the "staggeringly impossible" 2005 Ohio election, so I'm familiar with the MO.

You're not going to support the pile of crap you dumped on me here. You can't, because it's wildly untrue. And you don't have to, because you're BradBlog.

You may well have convinced yourself that paying for a full recount would have "helped (Obama) immeasurably." Hey, look what it did for Kucinich!* And you may have convinced yourself that it was tremendously important, even as you trumpet the chain-of-custody flaws. But these arguments don't make much sense on their own, so it's little wonder that you resort to performance art.

*(ETA) Oops, right, Kucinich didn't actually get the full recount. Maybe that was his mistake?

Oh, by the way, for a different take on my role here, you might compare notes with a friend. I don't know if I got that right, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

[BradBlog]

16. "Transparency" is my "shtick"?

I watched your ad hominem attack on Phil Klinkner after he dared to cross you on the "staggeringly impossible" 2005 Ohio election, so I'm familiar with the MO.

Would you like to share that? Or is just making the claim enough for ya? For the record, I stand by everything I've written (and which I also have the courage to put my name on.) Do you?

And why is it that in all of the places you write, you don't have the decency or courage to actually make it clear who you are and what you do?

You're not going to support the pile of crap you dumped on me here. You can't, because it's wildly untrue. And you don't have to, because you're BradBlog.

Actually, I have a long record (paper, audio, video, etc.) of challenging folks to challenge me if they feel I've reported something that is not independently verifiable, as I try to do with anything I officially cover. (Even while asking folks to challenge NYTimes, WaPo, AP, etc. to do same.)

I think that's in the best interest of democracy, and our country. So why don't you do the same?

And what is it that "pile of crap" you claim I will not "support"? Or is the slur, as usual, all you feel obligated to make from behind your pseudonym?

You may well have convinced yourself that paying for a full recount would have "helped (Obama) immeasurably." Hey, look what it did for Kucinich!* And you may have convinced yourself that it was tremendously important, even as you trumpet the chain-of-custody flaws. But these arguments don't make much sense on their own, so it's little wonder that you resort to performance art.

*(ETA) Oops, right, Kucinich didn't actually get the full recount. Maybe that was his mistake?

Actually, it was, and he should have. And yeah, it brought him a great deal of support and funding. So I'm sorry if I miss your point. But then again, I guess those "shy Republican voters" in 2004 did as well, eh?

Oh, by the way, for a different take on my role here, you might compare notes with a friend. I don't know if I got that right, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

You feel that a courteous thank you from an actual election integrity advocate -- one who has the courage to use his name when he goes on record, btw -- somehow excuses your obnoxious behavior here, at Daily Kos, and in the "official" public arena?

You keep apologizing for the shitty state of our electoral system, it's utter lack of transparency (from behind your various pseudonyms) and I'll keep fighting for the opposite. K?

[Ellipsis]

18. He's posted who he is.

Ain't tough to figure out who he is through his profile.

That being said... the condescending descriptors as of late are beginning to get to me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. by all means take a turn

I was glad not to be the only one here who thought that particular slam on Obama was kind of weird. stillcool47 is probably amazed to be agreeing with me, but stuff happens.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. I need to share your own words with you?

Yes, I know that you stand by everything you've written. That's the problem. OK, let's review:

Klinkner: "Over at the Huffington Post, Brad Friedman continues to peddle the idea that the 2005 election in Ohio was marred by massive voter fraud. As I point out in my post below, there's little if any evidence to support such an assertion. It seems to me that if Democrats want to nail the Republicans next year (and Ohio seems like a great opportunity for that), they should spend their time thinking about positive solutions to the nation's problems rather than sounding like a bunch of guys with foil helmets who run around making outlandish fraud accusations. (Besides, everyone knows that foil helmets actually help the government to read our minds!)"

Friedman: "(blah blah blah) I'm sorry to see that apparently you haven't read the GAO Report (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001940.htm) recently published confirming everything I've been reporting on as FACT. Nor have you read the "Cyber Alert Warning" (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001838.htm) as issued by US-CERT, a branch of the DHS, prior to the election warning that Diebold Central Tabulators are vulnerable to attack by a single malicious user. Your democracy is being gamed, and yet you don't seem to care. I wonder why.

While you characterize my work as "peddling massive fraud" (or however you worded it), it's unfortunate that you fail to characterize what I'm *actually* peddling. And that is, that without a transparent democracy in which the electorate can have confidence -- no matter the results of any election -- you destroy the very basis on which democracy rests.

As a "PolySigh" guy, I'd think you'd understand that more readily. Apparently you don't. Or, perhaps as with Blumenthal, apparently you simply don't care.

http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2005/11/move-on-brad.html

This went on several more rounds. Now, what's wrong here? You didn't even try to justify the argument you had actually made, which was that the results in Ohio were "staggeringly impossible." Did the GAO report confirm that? Of course not. Did the Cyber Alert Warning confirm that? Of course not. Was Klinkner criticizing something you had said about transparent democracy? Nope. He was criticizing your claims about fraud in Ohio. Did you defend them? No. Will you defend them? We shall see. I think they're indefensible, and you never came close in your colloquy with Klinkner. But you sure trashed him along the way -- and, to be sure, he gave as good as he got. A nifty coalition-building strategy you've got, dude.

And why is it that in all of the places you write, you don't have the decency or courage to actually make it clear who you are and what you do?

Anyone with the discipline to click on the profile button knows who I am and what I do. In case anyone missed the point, I often link to my work. Go lecture TruthIsAll and his faithful minions about decency -- I don't need it. So, will you stand by this, too? Sort of reenacting your "outing" of DHinMI?

And what is it that "pile of crap" you claim I will not "support"?

You need me to repeat your attacks back to you? Jeebus. Why don't you go find one thing of mine that you disagreed with, offer a reason, and win the argument? I'm assuming because it's easier to hurl fireballs.

And yeah, it brought him a great deal of support and funding.

Riiiiiiight. Not enough funding to complete the recount, but....

You keep apologizing for the shitty state of our electoral system, it's utter lack of transparency....

I'm doing no such thing. You are transparently moving the goalposts -- even if you yourself can't see it.

[stillcool]

11. Why is it up to the

candidate to secure elections in the various states? Every time a candidate questions the accuracy, he/she leaves themselves open to the "Sore loser", "Sour Grapes" outcries by the victor's supporters. Isn't it up to the states to decide how they run their elections? And isn't it up to the people in those states to insist their elections be accurate and secure? Why do some states already conduct mandatory standard recounts after every election, and other states still rely on touch screen voting with no paper?

[Bonn1997]

12. Why is it up to the candidate?

Because it's up to anyone and everyone who cares about to Democracy to do what they can to ensure that every vote counts. And the candidate is in a unique position to get the public to pay attention to an issue. Many leaders have been willing to die for what they believe in. A candidate should be willing to be called names like sore loser.

[stillcool]

13. Whose votes are they?

Why are people not responsible for having their votes count? Why do people only care about votes counting AFTER the election? Why do you hold the candidate responsible for how elections are run in your state? Are we going to play this game every 4 years? Blame the candidate for not counting votes that can not be counted? Do you still expect the federal government to fix this problem? Why are there states that have enacted the simple solutions to make sure their elections are secure?

[BradBlog]

17. Ours, but we're not ALLOWED to make sure they're counted...

Why are people not responsible for having their votes count? Why do people only care about votes counting AFTER the election? Why do you hold the candidate responsible for how elections are run in your state?

Because in most states, only candidates are given the standing to ensure that votes actually get counted, not citizens. In states where they can try to ensure that, most don't have the thousands (often hundreds of thousands) it takes to do so.

Obama, on the other hand, could have done so for just $2000 in New Hampshire. Had he wanted to.