Ida Briggs Starts NH recount Today

[truehawk]

Hopefully she will find the smoking gun.

[Thoth]

1. I'm eager to know the results, as I live in NH n/t

[progressiveboston]

8. Thoth

Do you live in Concord?

[LisaLynne]

2. Go, Ida, go!!! nt

[rockedthevoteinMA]

3. do they have enough money? n/t

[elehhhhna]

4. Hopefully she will win a Congressional Medal!

[bullimiami]

5. I know we are all nervous.

Hopeful, but nervous.
I know we are praying for just one small proof that the election smells.

[Eloriel]

6. Go, Ida!! n/t

[Stephanie]

7. Who has the link to Ida's thread that shows the discrepancies?

Search is closed right now. Thanks.

[MallRat]

9. How long will it take to complete? n/t

[distantearlywarning]

10. I believe

that this is the recount to be watching, not Ohio. Here are my reasons:

1) After digging up lots of information and reading some of the analyses since Nov. 2, it is my professional opinion (as much as that is worth) that some of the worst "machine" type fraud probably occurred in a number of counties using OpScan machines (likely in the states of FL, NC, NM, & NH).

2) Although there were many states with significant exit poll discrepancies (outside the 3% margin of error), NH was the most discrepant state in the Union.

3) The 11 counties in NH that Nader's team is investigating are all OpScan counties which had very discrepant exit polls compared to other counties.

4) Although I believe that some funny things happened in Ohio, I think that a large percentage of them are "social" type things like voter intimidation etc...that are very difficult to get a handle on large-scale and certainly don't have any hard evidence that can be shown to the American public (like machine tapes or ballots that don't match posted numbers, etc...). Remember - Ohio is primarily a paper ballot state, whereas NH has machine voting, which can be hacked by the evil machine makers and their confederates.

Although NH only has 4 electoral votes, already went to Kerry, and won't turn over the results, it certainly could provide unequivocal evidence of fraud, which could then be used as a basis for the Kerry campaign to demand recounts elsewhere. It could also discredit the Bush victory even without additional recounts in more "important" states.

I will make a prediction right now that the Ohio recount is unlikely to turn up anything of real value, but that the NH recount will. Wise Democrats should keep their eyes on NH as well as Ohio! :-)

Edited for a little clarity.

[Jersey Devil]

11. Fraud could be the basis for "contests" over and above recounts

An election "contest", as opposed to a recount, would be brought in court in which the validity of the election itself could be called into question and hard evidence of voter suppression would, imo, be a part of such contests. A "recount", on the other hand, is limited strictly to the ballots themselves.

[bleever]

12. It's just little old New Hampshire, but I bet that Karl Rove is

starting to sweat like a pound of bacon on a sunbaked picnic table.B-)

[dkofos]

13. I'm confident they will find something.

The theft of elections has become increasingly more blatant since 96.

Here's why