Diebold From The Democratic Side

Back in an earlier life I met him a few times.

Democrat operatives don't work for Republicans. Dick Morris is an exception.


Well ok, how about we take a crash course in Michael Whouley? He sounds like a super organizer with almost dictatorial control over the organization and the client. Can we hire this guy? rofl :)




But there might be another, more hidden story -- a secret weapon Kerry unleashed in Iowa several weeks ago. His name is Michael Whouley.

Michael who? Unless you're a hard-core political junkie, you've probably never even heard the name. But within the Democratic political world, Whouley is an almost-mythical figure. Revered as one of the party's fiercest and most talented ground-level organizers, Whouley is widely credited with saving Al Gore's foundering campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire in the 2000 primaries against Bill Bradley. Now this old Kerry ally may be working his magic one more time.

Whouley often seems like a kind of Keyser Soze figure -- his fearsome powers are the stuff of legend, but the man himself is rarely seen. Unlike other top campaign operatives, Whouley shuns attention. He avoids shows like "Hardball" and "Crossfire," and you can't find a picture of him on the Web. Whouley is so secretive that in 2000 he wouldn't even walk in front of a C-SPAN camera so his mother-in-law could see him on television. On the phone, Whouley sounds like a 300-pound truck driver -- he has a grumbly, profane voice, heavily inflected with the accent he acquired growing up in Boston's wor

king-class Dorchester neighborhood. (In fact, he is short, "balding," and "whip thin," according to The New York Times.)

Whouley also hates to be written about. Gore's former campaign manager, Donna Brazile, confided to me yesterday that she'd just gotten off the phone with Whouley. He'd told her "to stop bragging about him" to reporters.
But Whouley's track record makes him hard to ignore. Numerous veterans of the 2000 Gore campaign, including Gore himself, give Whouley vast credit for saving Gore's hide from Bill Bradley's primary challenge that year. At the time, Whouley was a fortyish ground operative who had been field director for Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and, briefly, patronage chief in the White House. He was first dispatched to New Hampshire after a poll showing Bradley with a lead in New Hampshire rocked the complacent Gore campaign. Whouley quickly identified the problem: Gore had been too regal and distant from the voters. He ended Gore's endless endorsement events and forced him to bang on more doors and make himself accessible through long town-hall meetings with undecided voters. They proved highly popular and crucially humanized the stiff vice president.

Having shored up Gore in New Hampshire, Whouley proceeded to Iowa, where Bradley was also gaining ground. Whouley called in several trusted old allies from around the country, many from Boston, and overhauled Gore's state operation. Once again, Whouley got results -- even if it meant bruising feelings. Press accounts describe an "icy fury" and killer stares shot at campaign workers who fail him. Brazile says she blanched when Whouley insisted that the man who'd been promised the prestigious job of managing California for Gore be sent to Western Iowa instead. But it was done. More efficient mail and phone operations helped Gore find his footing, and he blew out Bradley by 28 points.

Finally Whouley returned to New Hampshire for the homestretch in that state. He micromanaged Gore's voter turnout machine to the last possible hour -- even sending a last-minute throng of volunteers to pound on doors based on 4 p.m. primary exit poll data. In a rare moment of self-promotion following the primary, Whouley even bragged that he'd dispatched a convoy to create a traffic jam on I-93, designed to prevent upscale suburban Bradley voters from getting to the polls. (He later insisted this was a joke.) "He is so incredibly focused," Gore would later conclude to The Washington Post, that when Whouley sets a goal, "book it."

Lucky for Kerry, he had a longtime relationship with Whouley, dating back to Kerry's 1982 campaign for lieutenant governor. Kerry developed so much respect for Whouley that he actually cited him as a reason for not challenging Gore for the nomination in 2000. "I would not have enjoyed running against Whouley," Kerry told The Washington Post. "I definitely want him in my foxhole."



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/16/opinion/main593698.shtml
 
http://www.sos.nh.gov/presprim2008/rpresrock.htm
Look at the data for Rockingham County.
Romney - 21,838
Paul - 3,787

Oh, and I think I found the voter fraud.

"new voters" in "Manchester Ward 9"
see these threads

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=84333
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=88227

Look at this data:

Derry ( Pop. 34,290)
McCain 1760
Romney2093
Paul 412

Londonderry (Pop. 24, 835)
McCain 1757
Romney 1989
Paul 288


Hampton (Pop.15,450)
Mccain 1220
Romney1218
Paul 144


Exeter (Pop. 9,759)
McCain 1203
Romney 891
Paul 167




These are four border towns that had very similar numbers for McCain and Romney, both high relative to the other towns in Rockingham county. But, notice how similar the range, yet how different the Population number by a factor of three from Exeter to Derry.

What do you make of that?

And look at Hampton, the vote is almost the same number for Romney and McCain lol. Hampton was one of the 9.11% for Guiliani towns.


Look at how Paul gets almost 3 times the vote in Derry as he gets in Exeter, as it should be.

I'll check out those counties this week for affidavits.

Look at Londonderry and Derry have the same vote for McCain ...off by 3. And, Exeter and Hampton for McCain...off by 17 even though the population up by 50 percent.

Derry is three times the size of Exeter, yet McCain only picks up 550 votes.
 
Last edited:
Look at this data:

Derry ( Pop. 34,290)
McCain 1760
Romney2093
Paul 412

Londonderry (Pop. 24, 835)
McCain 1757
Romney 1989
Paul 288


Hampton (Pop.15,450)
Mccain 1220
Romney1218
Paul 144


Exeter (Pop. 9,759)
McCain 1203
Romney 891
Paul 167




These are four border towns that had very similar numbers for McCain and Romney, both high relative to the other towns in Rockingham county. But, notice how similar the range, yet how different the Population number by a factor of three from Exeter to Derry.

What do you make of that?

And look at Hampton, the vote is almost the same number for Romney and McCain lol. Hampton was one of the 9.11% for Guiliani towns.


Look at how Paul gets almost 3 times the vote in Derry as he gets in Exeter, as it should be.

I'll check out those counties this week for affidavits.

Look at Londonderry and Derry have the same vote for McCain ...off by 3. And, Exeter and Hampton for McCain...off by 17 even though the population up by 50 percent.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Romney did much better than Paul in those towns that're close to Mass. As was to be expected.

If I was looking for affidavits, I'd be looking for affidavits in areas with big numbers for Hillary, big Hillary to Obama ratios, basically, at places with a lot of affidavits.

The fraud was done by Hillary. I'd start with Manchester Ward 9, and make sure that every single affidavit corresponds to a person living in New Hampshire.

It doesn't really matter to Ron Paul, but since everyone seems so fired up about voter fraud, even when there's no evidence, I think people would be fired up about voter fraud where there does seem to be evidence.

It looks like people who shouldn't have been voting were voting.
 
I saw a ton of McCain people when I was in NH just before the election. They were in from New Jersey/ New York area.

My mind is still open as to what happened here.

But being a border town does not explain McCain. McCain's as hawkish as they get. I can't say that MA would have any love for McCain.

Manchester Ward 9, aye. Well the idea is that the people with the affidavits are not yet living in NH but are moving there.

You're not sure what I'm saying? I'm looking at what I consider to be strange patterns.

And, it does matter to Ron Paul because remember, his percentage is a percentage of the whole, and if the whole is inflated, his percentage is deflated.
 
Last edited:
Ok, The counties that produced the most votes for McCain are

Hillsborough 25, 448
Rockingham 21, 236 (which we just looked at)
Merrimack 10,903

Now look at these numbers for Romney--the first two are very similar to McCain

Hillsborough 25, 628
Rockingham 21,838
Merrimack 7,603


Hillsborough county has Manchester Ward 9
 
Last edited:
I saw a ton of McCain people when I was in NH just before the election. They were in from New Jersey/ New York area.

My mind is still open as to what happened here.

But being a border town does not explain McCain. McCain's as hawkish as they get. I can't say that MA would have any love for McCain.

Manchester Ward 9, aye. Well the idea is that the people with the affidavits are not yet living in NH but are moving there.

You're not sure what I'm saying? I'm looking at what I consider to be strange patterns.

And, it does matter to Ron Paul because remember, his percentage is a percentage of the whole, and if the whole is inflated, his percentage is deflated.



I just have no idea what is considered a "strange pattern" by you. 2 guys got roughly the same amount of votes. Ok, cool, what's "strange" about that?

There is nothing there for you to see.

There's an allegation that Hillary was bringing in van after van after van of "voters" who did not have to show ID or any proof that they were residents in
order to vote. If you're looking for voter fraud, you go and make sure that there are people living there, at the addresses listed in the affidavits. You go there, knock on a door, mail a postcard, etc. If you find that people don't live there, boom, you found voter fraud. Those people, if they can be found, can be fined $5000.

What that does for Ron Paul is say "hey we proved fraud" i\It doesn't give Ron Paul any extra votes or anything, but it makes all the people who are Ron Paul supporters and were screaming about fraud right about fraud. They were right in general about fraud (people who shouldn't be voting are voting) but wrong in specifics about fraud (diebold, 31 votes, etc).
 
WHO CAN REGISTER
New Hampshire residents who will be 18 years of age or older on election day, and a United States Citizen, may register with the town or city clerk where they live up to 10 days before any election. You may also register on election day at the polling place. The town clerk's office can inform voters of what proof of qualification they should bring to register.

There is no minimum period of time you are required to have lived in the state before being allowed to register. You may register as soon as you move into your new community.



3) Qualified individuals may also register to vote at the polling place on election day at all elections. You will be asked to show proof of age, citizenship, and domicile.



Out of state college students can vote in NH

COLLEGE STUDENTS
If you are a student attending college in New Hampshire, please click here for additional information.


"If you do not have these forms of identification which prove identity, domicile, citizenship, and age, you may complete an identification affidavit, domicile affidavit, or citizenship affidavit."
 
I just have no idea what is considered a "strange pattern" by you. 2 guys got roughly the same amount of votes. Ok, cool, what's "strange" about that?

There is nothing there for you to see.

There's an allegation that Hillary was bringing in van after van after van of "voters" who did not have to show ID or any proof that they were residents in
order to vote. If you're looking for voter fraud, you go and make sure that there are people living there, at the addresses listed in the affidavits. You go there, knock on a door, mail a postcard, etc. If you find that people don't live there, boom, you found voter fraud. Those people, if they can be found, can be fined $5000.

What that does for Ron Paul is say "hey we proved fraud" i\It doesn't give Ron Paul any extra votes or anything, but it makes all the people who are Ron Paul supporters and were screaming about fraud right about fraud. They were right in general about fraud (people who shouldn't be voting are voting) but wrong in specifics about fraud (diebold, 31 votes, etc).

They'd have to get people to agree to do that: go to NH and pretend they are college students in New Hampshire without any ID or whatever and then fill out the affidavits and lie.

In your experience, would it be possible to get large numbers of people to do this?
 
I just have no idea what is considered a "strange pattern" by you. 2 guys got roughly the same amount of votes. Ok, cool, what's "strange" about that?

There is nothing there for you to see.

I agree with her. If this is something that's been done in the past (bringing people in from outside the state), there's no reason to believe that other candidate's supporters wouldn't do it. And if someone is getting paid to do this on a large scale, the numbers would definitely follow a pattern.

I don't know where it is right off hand, but I was looking at the law regarding residency the other day, and it sounded like it could be interpreted as saying that you only have to "intend" to move there. Maybe somebody can dig it up, or I'll find it another time.
 
Ok, this is what I was reading. It is in the information for college students, but I don't know whether or not it only applies to students.

New Hampshire law provides the following definition of domicile:
An inhabitant's domicile for voting purposes is that one place where a person, more than any other place, has established a physical presence and manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social, and civil purposes relevant to participating in democratic self-government. A person has the right to change domicile at any time, however a mere intention to change domicile in the future does not, of itself, terminate an established domicile before the person actually moves. A person’s claim of domicile for voting purposes shall not be conclusive of the person’s residence for any other purpose.

http://www.sos.nh.gov/College Student Voting.pdf

I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if just putting somebody up in a hotel would satisfy those requirements. Or could you at least convince someone that it would, especially if you paid them?

The affidavit:
http://www.sos.nh.gov/DOMICILE AFFIDAVIT.pdf

Anyway, records need to be dug up.
 
Did you ever do the republican count? Btw thanks for standing up for truth.

I hope you learn about Ron's stances and see that he really is the only real candidate who's record matches what he says.

We all know both parties are corrupt. Ron's trying to restore the real meaning of what a Republican was, but it's not easy with neocons(ex trotskyites) controlling things. I don't think big govt. socialist and marxist dems are any better. To me, less govt is the best option, that's why I love Ron paul.



Hi there ... I'm a Liberal Democrat ... and I think we have a common cause ...

Namely, dealing with the criminal conspiracy which has hyjacked our voting system to defraud the American People in their right to fair elections.

I noticed on BBV that much of the analysis of the NH Primary results were from the Republican side, mostly (if not completely) from Ron Paul supporters. I've done some analysis of the results from the Democratic Primary I'd like to share with you folks.

I believe there is a consistant 7%-10% difference in the percentage of votes scored by Clinton and Obama between Diebold towns and Hand Count towns ... in Clinton's favor.

PctDiff.gif


*****************

  1. I started with the raw data in Boston.com. I selected the entire table and copy/pasted it into an Excel spreadsheet.
  2. I deleted the following columns from the spreadsheet because they were unnecessary for the analysis
    • Precincts Reporting
    • Total Precincts
    This left me with
    • Name of Town
    • Biden
    • Clinton
    • Dodd
    • Edwards
    • Gravel
    • Kucinich
    • Obama
    • Richardson
    • Other
    • Write In
  3. I added a column called Total Votes and filled it with the sum of votes for all candidates, for each town
  4. Now that I had the Total Votes, I deleted all the individual candidates except Clinton and Obama (without changing the number of Total Votes.

    What I had now looked like this:

    Code:
    |         |       |     |Total|
    |Town     |Clinton|Obama|Votes|
    +---------+-------+-----+-----+
    |Acworth  |     72|  118|  268|
    |Albany   |     58|   82|  193|
    |Alexandra|    118|  121|  344|
    |.........|.......|.....|.....|
    |Windsor  |      0|    0|    0|
    |Wolfeboro|    517|  640| 1510|
    |Woodstock|    112|  115|  289|
    +---------+-------+-----+-----+
  5. I added a column called Count Type, and looked up which Towns used Diebold and which used Hand Counting, putting either a D or an H in the Count Type column.

    Code:
    |Count|         |       |     |Total|
    |Type |Town     |Clinton|Obama|Votes|
    +-----+---------+-------+-----+-----+
    |   H |Acworth  |     72|  118|  268|
    |   H |Albany   |     58|   82|  193|
    |   H |Alexandra|    118|  121|  344|
    |.....|.........|.......|.....|.....|
    |   H |Windsor  |      0|    0|    0|
    |   D |Wolfeboro|    517|  640| 1510|
    |   H |Woodstock|    112|  115|  289|
    +-----+---------+-------+-----+-----+
  6. I added two more columns %Clinton and %Obama created by dividing the specific votes per city by the total votes per city

    Code:
    |Count|         |       |     |Total|Clinton| Obama |
    |Type |  Town   |Clinton|Obama|Votes|   %   |   %   |
    +-----+---------+-------+-----+-----+-------+-------+
    |   H |Acworth  |     72|  118|  268| 26.77%| 43.87%|
    |   H |Albany   |     58|   82|  193| 29.90%| 42.47%|
    |   H |Alexandra|    118|  121|  344| 33.91%| 34.77%|
    |.....|.........|.......|.....|.....|.......|.......|
    |   H |Windsor  |      0|    0|    0|#DIV/0!|#DIV/0!|
    |   D |Wolfeboro|    517|  640| 1510| 34.24%| 42.38%|
    |   H |Woodstock|    112|  115|  289| 38.75%| 39.79%|
    +-----+---------+-------+-----+-----+-------+-------+
  7. I removed any rows (like Windsor) which obviously hadn't reported any votes yet.

    Code:
    |Count|         |       |     |Total|Clinton| Obama |
    |Type |  Town   |Clinton|Obama|Votes|   %   |   %   |
    +-----+---------+-------+-----+-----+-------+-------+
    |   H |Acworth  |     72|  118|  268| 26.77%| 43.87%|
    |   H |Albany   |     58|   82|  193| 29.90%| 42.47%|
    |   H |Alexandra|    118|  121|  344| 33.91%| 34.77%|
    |.....|.........|.......|.....|.....|.......|.......|
    |   D |Wolfeboro|    517|  640| 1510| 34.24%| 42.38%|
    |   H |Woodstock|    112|  115|  289| 38.75%| 39.79%|
    +-----+---------+-------+-----+-----+-------+-------+
  8. I sorted the spreadsheet by Count Type and then City

    Code:
    |Count|          |       |     |Total|Clinton| Obama |
    |Type |  Town    |Clinton|Obama|Votes|   %   |   %   |
    +-----+----------+-------+-----+-----+-------+-------+
    |   D |Allenstown|    461|  256|  990| 46.57%| 25.86%|
    |   D |Alton     |    362|  371|  979| 36.98%| 37.90%|
    |   D |Amherst   |    970|1,309|2,911| 33.32%| 44.97%|
    |.....|..........|.......|.....|.....|.......|.......|
    |   H |Wilmot    |     87|  207|  392| 22.19%| 52.81%|
    |   H |Wilton    |    284|  386|  975| 29.13%| 39.59%|
    |   H |Woodstock |    112|  115|  289| 38.75%| 39.79%|
    +-----+----------+-------+-----+-----+-------+-------+
  9. And then removed the Total Votes column

    Code:
    |Count|          |       |     |Clinton| Obama |
    |Type |  Town    |Clinton|Obama|   %   |   %   |
    +-----+----------+-------+-----+-------+-------+
    |   D |Allenstown|    461|  256| 46.57%| 25.86%|
    |   D |Alton     |    362|  371| 36.98%| 37.90%|
    |   D |Amherst   |    970|1,309| 33.32%| 44.97%|
    |.....|..........|.......|.....|.......|.......|
    |   H |Wilmot    |     87|  207| 22.19%| 52.81%|
    |   H |Wilton    |    284|  386| 29.13%| 39.59%|
    |   H |Woodstock |    112|  115| 38.75%| 39.79%|
    +-----+----------+-------+-----+-------+-------+
  10. Now I could start creating graphs directly from this, but they're not very useful. Let's say I created two graphs from the above table; Clinton Votes vs Obama Votes under Diebold counting, and Clinton Votes vs Obama Votes under Hand counting.

    RawVotesUnderDiebold.gif
    RawVotesUnderHand.gif


    Like I said, not very useful, although it does show that there are a lot more votes counted by Diebold than by hand. The problem is that there is no natural relationship between a city's name and the votes that Clinton or Obama got in that city.
  11. I deleted the Town Name column and sorted the votes by size for Clinton and Obama (I also sorted the Clinton% and Obama% columns the same way.

    Now the table looks like

    Code:
    |Count|       |     |Clinton| Obama |
    |Type |Clinton|Obama|   %   |   %   |
    +-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+
    |   D |  9,492|6,382| 57.60%| 58.16%|
    |   D |  7,713|5,597| 51.21%| 52.09%|
    |   D |  3,898|4,367| 50.87%| 48.20%|
    |.....|.......|.....|.......|.......|
    |   H |      4|    9| 20.39%| 23.65%|
    |   H |      3|    7| 14.16%| 22.67%|
    |   H |      0|    1|  0.00%| 16.67%|
    +-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+

    Now the vote breakdown graphs look a lot more interesting

    VotesUnderDiebold.gif
    VotesUnderHand.gif


    This is the distribution of votes over the state, for each candidate, broken down by the way the vote was counted.
  12. The percentage of the votes over the state, for each candidate, broken down by the way the vote was counted is even more interesting

    PctUnderDiebold.gif
    PctUnderHand.gif


    Notice that there is a fundemental difference between the two graphs ... under Diebold, Clinton has a consistantly higher percentage of the vote, while under Hand Count, Obama has a consistantly higher percentage of the vote.
  13. Finally, to get a better handle on the amount of difference the way the vote of counted makes by adding one last column to the spreadsheet ... the Difference in % column by subtracting the Clinton percentage from the Obama percentage.

    Code:
    |Count|       |     |Clinton| Obama |Difference|
    |Type |Clinton|Obama|   %   |   %   |   in %   |
    +-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+----------+
    |   D |  9,492|6,382| 57.60%| 58.16%|     0.56%|
    |   D |  7,713|5,597| 51.21%| 52.09%|     0.88%|
    |   D |  3,898|4,367| 50.87%| 48.20%|    -2.67%|
    |.....|.......|.....|.......|.......|..........|
    |   H |      4|    9| 20.39%| 23.65%|     3.26%|
    |   H |      3|    7| 14.16%| 22.67%|     8.51%|
    |   H |      0|    1|  0.00%| 16.67%|    16.67%|
    +-----+-------+-----+-------+-------+----------+

    Now if you graph those differences in percent of vote, one curve for the Diebold data and one curve for the Hand Count data you get

    PctDiff.gif
Which I believe shows there is a consistant 7% - 10% difference in the percentage of votes scored by Clinton and Obama between Diebold towns and Hand Count towns ... in Clinton's favor.
al_wave.gif


****************

P.S. - Fox News Sucks
 
Last edited:
PatriotOne - I got the linkages between town and count method at BBV through

http://www.bbvdocs.org/NH/state/Jan-08-votingsystems-NH.txt

al_wave.gif


************

Molly - Those x-axis numbers are the 'sequence numbers' of towns.

Remember how I sorted the data so that the largest (whatever) was the first data point, the second largest (whatever) was the second data point, and so on? That's what those numbers are, the position of a particular town within a sorted order of something related to that town.

They're unimportant and I've tried to get rid of them from the graph, but so far, no luck.
:(

*************

Last night I was bothered by the confusion comparing individual candidate pairs. There still may be something there, but it will probably take looking at all possible combinations of two candidates to see it, and that's iffy.

So what I did was look at individual candidates and their distributions of percentage of votes, both from the hand count and from the Diebold count. What I got was this

justGuiliani.gif
justHuckabee.gif


justMcCain.gif
justHunter.gif


justRomney.gif
justPaul.gif


justThompson.gif
justTancredo.gif


There seems to be a 10 image limit to an individual post, so I guess I've got to start another post.
 
Ok, where was I ...

Oh yeah, and just for good measure

justOther.gif
justWriteIn.gif


**************

Well, there are patterns there for sure, but they're rather hard to compare with each other. Take for instance

justPaul.gif
justRomney.gif


Obviously Ron Paul was 'hurt' by the Diebold count, and Romney was 'helped', but by how much? What we want is some sort of measure of the distance between the red and blue lines, which is (mostly) positive for Romney and negative for Ron Paul.

For that measure I subtracted the Hand percentage from the Diebold percentage ... a reasonable measure of the distance and the +/- signs are correct.

Also, there were a greater number of Hand Count towns than Diebold towns, so I cut out the lowest Hand Count towns so that there were the same number of Diebold and Hand towns. (After all, if you subtract a number from something that isn't there, what do you get? ... Probably garbage)

I did that for all the candidates and got this baby

justAll.gif


From this I think it would be fair to say that Romney was 'helped' by the Diebold count and McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul were 'hurt' by it, and the rest were pretty much uneffected.
 
Last edited:
Obviously Ron Paul was 'hurt' by the Diebold count, and Romney was 'helped', but by how much? What we want is some sort of measure of the distance between the red and blue lines, which is (mostly) positive for Romney and negative for Ron Paul.

Sir Rhino, we already did this without graphs the night of the election. Have you seen that link that shows the differential between hand and diebold for all the candidates? I've lost track of it at the moment. It shows the quantitative effect of diebold for each candidate.

It showed that every candidate lost votes under diebold except for Romney, Guiliani (which bumped him above Paul), and Clinton (which bumped her above Obama). Those three gained votes under diebold.

If you haven't seen that work, you need to see it.

Guiliani isn't showing up on your graph because it was such a small effect, but it was enough to bump him above Paul since Paul also lost about 2.2% under diebold.

Guiliani and Paul look the same as Clinton and Obama. Clinton got a big positive effect from diebold and Obama got a big negative effect, and the result was Clinton won the election.

You have to look at it as a whole, both parties, all major candidates.

What is most signifigant in my mind is that there is a "diebold effect" for every candidate. And the diebold effect determines the outcome of the election for Clinton, Obama, Guiliani, and Paul. It changes their order in the pack.


.
 
Last edited:
They'd have to get people to agree to do that: go to NH and pretend they are college students in New Hampshire without any ID or whatever and then fill out the affidavits and lie.

In your experience, would it be possible to get large numbers of people to do this?


Well, first I'd say that I'm not sure that the people committing fraud "go to NH" I'd guess that it would most properly be considered "taken to the polls by the Hillary campaign"

We don't really know if those warm bodies that Hillary was taking to the polls live in NH or not. We just know that wave after wave of unregistered people went to the polls, signed a form, and voted for Hillary. We don't know who they are and how they got in the Hillary van, whereever the Hillary van left from.
 
I agree with her. If this is something that's been done in the past (bringing people in from outside the state), there's no reason to believe that other candidate's supporters wouldn't do it. And if someone is getting paid to do this on a large scale, the numbers would definitely follow a pattern.

I don't know where it is right off hand, but I was looking at the law regarding residency the other day, and it sounded like it could be interpreted as saying that you only have to "intend" to move there. Maybe somebody can dig it up, or I'll find it another time.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

She's talking about looking at numbers and trying to find strange patterns.
I don't think that the diebold vs hand count thing is worth investigating in this particular case.
ge
I'm talking about investigating the voter fraud that took place in Manchester Ward 9, based on what the poll watcher saw in Manchester Ward 9.

If I was looking at numbers to try to guess where the fraud was taking place, I'd start with those areas where, on a percentage basis, Hillary did better than Obama - the ratio of Hillary to Obama. In Manchester Ward 9, the ratio of Hillary to Obama was high.

I'd also look at places where the gap between Hillary and Obama was high in terms of raw votes. I believe that over 1,000 votes separated Hillary and Obama in Salem.

But, we know that vote fraud took place in Manchester Ward 9 based on reliable eyewitness accounts.

I'd try to prove the fraud by getting the affidavits that people signed in Manchester Ward 9, and then going to the locations that people said they lived, and making sure that those people actually lived there.
 
Ok, this is what I was reading. It is in the information for college students, but I don't know whether or not it only applies to students.



I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if just putting somebody up in a hotel would satisfy those requirements. Or could you at least convince someone that it would, especially if you paid them?

The affidavit:
http://www.sos.nh.gov/DOMICILE AFFIDAVIT.pdf

Anyway, records need to be dug up.

Apparently, all the people had to do was write down some address and sign some name. No id was checked at all.

Agreed, records need to be dug up.
 
I'm not sure what you're talking about.

She's talking about looking at numbers and trying to find strange patterns.
I don't think that the diebold vs hand count thing is worth investigating in this particular case.
ge
I'm talking about investigating the voter fraud that took place in Manchester Ward 9, based on what the poll watcher saw in Manchester Ward 9.

If I was looking at numbers to try to guess where the fraud was taking place, I'd start with those areas where, on a percentage basis, Hillary did better than Obama - the ratio of Hillary to Obama. In Manchester Ward 9, the ratio of Hillary to Obama was high.

I'd also look at places where the gap between Hillary and Obama was high in terms of raw votes. I believe that over 1,000 votes separated Hillary and Obama in Salem.

But, we know that vote fraud took place in Manchester Ward 9 based on reliable eyewitness accounts.

I'd try to prove the fraud by getting the affidavits that people signed in Manchester Ward 9, and then going to the locations that people said they lived, and making sure that those people actually lived there.

Yes, I agree, you could look in those areas for the number of affidavits. Don't know if the public can see those or count them or if there is a stat maintained on them by the govt, yet.

But the dems should do what you are suggesting. I'm chasing down the republican vote doing the same thing, Romney and Mccain.

Give the Hilary task to Sir Rhino. :)
 
Back
Top