New Hampshire recount results

Big shock, it turns out the radical left's cry of "the election was stolen" is wrong again.

You know even though I'm a Hillary supporter, I used to admire Kucinich so I sent $50 to his campaign last year. He was supposed to send me one of those little pocket Constitutions he carries around (autographed) - it was a special fundraising offer.

Well, I'm still waiting for my pocket Constitution, and wondering what in the hell he's doing wasting $27,000 of his contributors' money on this red herring.

Go Hillary!

Jeff,

Obviously you haven't learned to read.

There was a Democratic AND a Republican recount. DUH!!

Jeff, I don't know where you're getting your information, but I haven't seen anyone involved (on the left or right) claiming the election was stolen. This is about election integrity. I can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to verifying the accuracy of a vote.

"Kucinich's references, detailed in the two-page letter, refer to counts in Nashua Ward 5 where there were variances discovered in the counting as high as 4.9%; in Manchester Ward 5 where tallies varied 10.6%; and in New Ipswich, which saw 7.5% differences in the hand count totals from the original count for one candidate. Those districts were all tabulated on Election Day solely by error-prone, hackable Diebold optical-scan voting systems.

As well, the hand counts revealed 100 fewer votes actually existed for Barack Obama, in the town of Wilton, than were actually recorded for him on the night of the election..."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5598#more-5598

This recount was not because Kucinich or Albert though that they were cheated out of winning the elections, but because they wanted to restore voters confidence in the reliability of these voting machines. This is one of the few states where the machines actually produce a paper trail. Also the results posted are only from one county.

That link (above) only just shows Rockingham Country by itself. That ain't enough to prove anything (much less a "clean" election).

The counts in Nashua Ward 5, there were variances discovered in the counting as high as 4.9%; in Manchester Ward 5 tallies varied 10.6%; and in New Ipswich, there were 7.5% differences in the hand count totals from the original count for one candidate. Those districts were all tabulated on Election Day solely by error-prone, hackable Diebold optical-scan voting systems.

As well, the hand counts revealed 100 fewer votes actually existed for Barack Obama, in the town of Wilton, than were actually recorded for him on the night of the election...

See: www.bradblog.com
These resulys are totally unacceptable. Unless every vote in this Country is respected, and is considered sacred and counted in full, then we have no rights and we have no Democracy.

Obama loses 100 votes in Wilton and people are saying that constitutes a "clean election"?

There needs to be a full Statewide Recount.

This is exactly what every single Republican sounds like to me these days:

"The Angel of the Lord told me in January of 1992 that Hillary Rodham Clinton and I would meet and be running against each other and that she would lose."

But you must remember this, the crooks are on the other side. What about the results of the Republican coalition?
Sorry, the "fusion" slate.
Hard to believe that Ronny and Nancy won more delegates than Ron Paul. Something always stinks when the Republicans are upwind of you.

how can you support kucinich AND hillary? you might as well support george bush

My question is, why is there any discrepancy in the numbers at all? That is troubling. If using computers doesn't make vote tallies more accurate, then it is pointless to spend money on them and use them at all.

the vote count will look legit for the most part because hiLIARy's tactic in New Hampshire was unethically taking advantage of the lax residency laws and bussing in thousands of voters who neither live nor work in New Hampshire in from neighbboring states

9 polls were not wrong for one candidate only - hilLIARy cheated (as usual)

if she has her way, she'll have illegal residents and felons voting for her nationwide before things are over

OMG, do you folks really believe the recount revealed no problems simply because "the state . . . saw no major problems" and the Swamp saw fit to look no closer than that? Thanks to Kucinich's recount (and no thanks to NH's Sec of State), we're now aware of how pathetic NH's voting and recount process are, that no one keeps track of the Diebold cards in the machines, and that there's no reliable chain of custody for the ballots. See http://bradblog.com/ and http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/71456.html

Many thanks Congressman Kucinich! Hopefully, if these deficiencies are publicized, we can have meaningful election reform before November.

New Hampshire Speaks Loud and Clear... GO Hillary GO!

I've heard that Obama actually received more delegates in both New Hampshire and Nevada than Clinton. Is that true? And if so, why isn't he being portrayed by the media as the winner in both states. Aren't delegates what this is all about?

I try not to be too skeptical, but stopping a recount midstream makes me wonder. This does nothing but fuel speculation that there is something foul in the air. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the men in the purple robes decided the election results for the next 30 years some time in 1988. Politics in American stink. The only thing of value any more is hockey.

"Jeff,

Obviously you haven't learned to read.

There was a Democratic AND a Republican recount. DUH!!

Posted by: dogjudge | January 24, 2008 2:28 PM"

But remember, the GOP recount was ordered by God...

WOW, somebody actually claims to support Hilary. Well, maam, you are the first that I have seen make this endorsement.

Welcome to machine, a machine that can't count. But, they keep using the machine because the machine is good and can't be wrong. All hail the machine! Whatever happened to paper ballots? Did we run out of paper?

Don't vote for Hitlery, McWarHero, Huckleberry, Dumdwards, or Obombus. The ONLY guy who will get us out of trouble is RON PAUL. But, as usual, all the mainstream voters have to be just that, and they choose someone that the media props up as a "fromt-runner". Do a lttle research on YOUR OWN instead of listening to the boob-tube!

Hey Hitlery, there's no crying in politics, so get a tissue and dry up. The rest of you so-called candidates?....nothing but snake-oil salesman. Get real.

Vote for RON PAUL.

"The recount on that side is being paid for by Republican candidate Albert Howard, who will need nothing short of an act of God to turn the 44 votes he received on Jan. 9 into a victory."

Since Albert Howard is contesting the vote in order to have accurate and secure elections, it will indeed take an act of God for him to victorious in his cause.

You really need to look at the
bradblog it is provide more truth then the sun. Nice reporting

The website Black Box Voting dot org followed the recount as best as they were allowed to.
Folks, please visit this non-profit's website to see video footage of just how lax the security was (the seals were a joke,) how hostile the officials in charge were (why?,) and basically see how our parties are most likely fixing this game.

Everything you need to know about the NH recount can be found in the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

This was posted yesterday.