Obama "robbed" in New York Primary?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Cleverboy, Feb 18, 2008.

  1. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #1
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/news/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932.htm
    Oy. Wouldn't THAT be something crazy? :eek: Messy, messy, messy.

    UPDATE: New York Times has posted the story too:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
    Even if this doesn't ultimately affect the carrying of the state (which may be unlikely), it certainly has the potential to weigh in on the amount of delegates awarded for each district.
    ~ CB
     
  2. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #2
    I was listening to some liberal talk radio and this subject came up. They even brought up an interesting point about New Hampshire. They are convinced the right wing wants Hillary to win or at the very least to cause a big division in the Democratic Party, and will rig the vote so that they can get their matchup with her or cause such division that Obama would be easily beatable with Clinton's supporters alienated from the division in the campaign and thus not voting for him in the general election. She has nearly a 55% disapproval rating in national polls and the right wing wants to go against her because they can simply invoke Bill's "I did not have sex with that woman" quote into every single ad and it would win the election for them. Barack is far more dangerous to them. Any attacks on his race/religion will cause an incredible welling of support from white liberals and minorities in this country. It's one thing to Swiftboat John Kerry. It's an entirely different thing to flat-out lie about a black man's religion/race, etc. He's more difficult to attack than Hillary and they are scared to death of him.

    Now, onto my point about New Hampshire. The hand count went in favor of Obama. The machine count went in favor of Clinton. We all know that if Barack had won in New Hamsphire, Hillary likely would have given up completely. So these liberal radio folks are speculating that it was an effort to keep it going as long as possible in order to divide the Democrats and it's worked. Hillary is now making negative attacks on Obama's integrity and it appears that the Superdelegate issue is going to be a big problem for Democrats. The party is truly divided right now. Her supporters hate him because they think he's a snake oil salesman and believe his supporters are a cult. His supporters hate her because of the negative attacks and the race-baiting from Bill Clinton in South Carolina, and actually Bill Clinton being involved at all in the campaign angers Obama supporters.

    I will say this. If the Democrats do not nominate the winner of the popular delegate count and let party insiders select the nominee, I will never vote for them again no matter how bad the Republicans may be.
     
  3. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    Same. I will start voting for third party candidates if this happens.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    You know... every time someone on the losing end of a vote screams about some problem with the ballot, it undercuts any legitimate cases where such actions may occur.

    Seriously, without compelling evidence of fraud, refrain from imputing shady motivations to your opponents.
     
  5. motulist macrumors 601

    motulist

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    #5
    Corruption and fraud are pervasive in our voting system today. There's tons of evidence. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but our country is no longer ours. A bloodless coup happened right in front of our eyes, and almost no one is aware of it. Until there's massive election reform and massive lobbyist reform, then our country will remain under the rule of self selected oligarchs.

    http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q="election+fraud"&btnG=Search
     
  6. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #6
    Believe me, I do not endorse those ideas at all. Those people are so obsessed with the right wing that they think the right wing came in and deliberately sabotaged both New Hampshire and New York. She won by a big margin in New York and Obama's camp said they didn't think anything underhanded had happened. Just human error.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    I never did, and in no way intended, to say that you endorsed the idea of rampant deliberate voter fraud in New York or New Hampshire's primary.

    I'm simply addressing the "crying wolf" aspect of voter irregularities that seems to pop up everytime a partisan's favorite politician loses an elections. "Since it CAN'T POSSIBLY be that the rest of the world doesn't see my favorite politician in the same fabulously favorable light that I do, something nefarious must have taken place in the voter booths." It soothes egos and allows those on the losing side to vent in a non-violent manner.

    And it makes it that much harder for the next victim of ACTUAL voter disenfranchisement to make their case.
     
  8. redfirebird08 macrumors regular

    redfirebird08

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    #8
    Right. I was proud of Kerry when he gave up fighting for Ohio and just conceded rather than dragging it out, which he still believes to this day (and there is evidence of it) that some fraud went on. My only suspicions about Ohio came about because the owner of Die-Bold (maker of the voting machines) promised on the campaign trail that he would deliver Ohio to Bush. When I heard he was the Die-Bold owner that kinda got my attention. And when the election came down to that very state, I just said "eh, screw it...let 'em have it and they'll get their payback in 2008 when the people finally stand up and vote for something better."
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    This discussion seems to have taken a strange turn. If a candidate records zero votes in a precinct in which he or she would have been expected to do well, it may not be the result of fraud, but it's also not simply alarmism or partisanship to question the accuracy of the results, and how it could have happened.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Of course not. But in today's hyper-partisan, continuous news cycle environment it seems like any vote irregularity becomes grist for someone's "they stole the election" conspiracy.

    In fact, I'd like to see (nonpartisan of course) studies done to try and analyze how accurate our voting methods are, and ways to improve them. There are undoubtedly lessons to be learned as to why zero votes were recorded for one or another politicians in areas where they should have done well.
     
  11. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #11
    So you are talking about an election...? :rolleyes:
     
  12. motulist macrumors 601

    motulist

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    #12
    I'm talking about a defrauded election. There's plenty of evidence, just look it at many of the links in google. There are even videos where election machine programmers testify in court about the fact that it's highly likely that election returns have been completely falsified.
     
  13. Cleverboy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #13
    Yeah, I don't see "voting fraud" unless I see "voting fraud", but people need to scream at "hanging chads" as well. How many years do we need to deal with that kind of crap before it gets resolved? Clearly, problems will always happen, but for someone to get ZERO votes, where the opponent gets 180... it should raise quesitons, and be cause for things to be properly "fixed/corrected".

    "Human error" is fine and good until it happens to you, and ruins an otherwise wonderful day. That said, I'm pleased the Obama campaign has better things to do than to howl at this kettle. I felt bad for the people hand-counting in New Mexico. I think if someone had called for another recount someone would have gotten shot.

    ~ CB
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    While I'm not convinced that e-voting machines are necessarily secure, saying there's plenty of evidence because of Google links is absurd. There's also plenty of evidence, based on Google links, that the Holocaust never happened, that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the moon landing all happened on a sound stage.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    Clearly there is room for better voting procedures and laws. I've already stated that I'd like to see some form of auditing take place to determine how accurate the different voting methods are, and to implement ways to increase their accuracy.

    Also, there's a difference between saying there's a problem with the count -- such as a situation where you got zero votes in a precinct you know you should have done well in -- and claiming that it's something other than human or machine error. It's one thing to suspect a counting problem, and quite another to accuse your opponent of working behind the scenes to deny you votes. It seems like, too often these days, the former is automatically considered evidence of the latter.
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    I used to think this was tinfoil hat stuff, but I've seen evidence of corruption and worse, incompetence. We definitely need a better system, and more oversight. If nothing else, than to counter some of the inconsistencies. And even more important, to shut the conspiracy nuts up.

    Who am I kidding, they'll probably still think there's a conspiracy. Even if there's no evidence of one. Especially if there's no evidence of one.
     
  17. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #17
    And of course everything on teh interwebs is true.
     
  18. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #18
    They aren't secure. They contain two databases (based laughably enough on MS Access :rolleyes:), only one of which has an auditable numbers trail. The other one, the one that the votes are directly cast into, cannot be overseen by the election officers.

    It's an extremely bad design and one that is open to abuse. Back to the drawing board Diebold!!
     
  19. motulist macrumors 601

    motulist

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    #19
    Right, and just because it's on the net means it must be some crazy whacko that has no credibility, right? On wait, that's not right. Ever hear about a guy called Michael Bloomberg? He's a mayor, mayor of New York, a moderate republican, created the Bloomberg company that dominates reporting in many areas, he's a multi-billionaire, and a man noted for doing good in the world.

    And he's saying that the NY primary election was a fraud. And he has proof in the numbers.

    But he must be a kook because it's being reported on the net. Right?

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Bloombergs_allegation.html
     

Share This Page