New Hampshire: fulcrum for full voting investigation?

Nader's New Hampshire recount matched the original optical count.  So in one state at least, we do not have to fear e-voting fraud.

Furthermore, the exit polls in New Hampshire match the verified (ie recounted) outcome.  Thus:

We have a concrete instance where U.S. exit polling on Nov 2 accurately matched a real, verified outcome

This may sound trivial, but I believe it is exceptionally important.

The Right Wing Noise Machine is vehemently attempting to blame the Florida/Ohio exit poll mismatches on the exit polls.  The fact that the exit polls match a verified vote in New Hampshire is a powerful point to make to disrupt the RWNM.

In other words, the New Hampshire exit poll match is a fulcrum for opening up a full investigation in Florida and Ohio.  I feel this point has been woefully overlooked.

[x-posted at mydd]

•  I don't think this is accurate

  As I remember, much of the reason for the recount was that the first count did not match the exit polls. If the initial count matched the recount, then it couldn't be true that the recount matched the exit polls but the initial count didn't. Bev Harris makes some claims about certain other races on the ballots not matching up, as if ballots had been borrowed. Her credibility has been somewhat diminished lately, though.

  by NonemptySubset on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 02:39:13 PM PDT

  •  The problem

    is that CNN modified their exit polls the next day, saying they had oversampled certain groups that tended towards Kerry. So the final exit polls now give Bush wins where the initial count gave him a win.

    by NonemptySubset on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 02:43:00 PM PDT

    •  Problem

      But if there was a mismatch between "original" exit polls and the verified NH outcome, then that would surely prove that the Right Wing Noise Machine are actually right: the mismatch is the fault of the exit polls, not due to election rigging.

      This would then be similar to the UK 1992(?)election, in which people interviewed in exit polls were "embarrassed" to admit they voted for Thatcher(?) (IIRC).

      by Winger on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 02:50:05 PM PDT

      •  Right

        Though Ralph has pointed out that these counties used machines that were not made by Diebold but by a company purchased by Diebold after the machines were manufactured. However, if what Bev Harris says about one of the other races on the ballot not matching is true, it seems clear enough that something is amiss. I'm not sure whether to believe her, but there was an article in The Nation that suggested something to that effect as well.

        by NonemptySubset on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 02:59:59 PM PDT

      •  Major

        't was John Major, Thatcher's successor - he was running against Neil Kinnock at the time.

        by brainwave on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 03:01:07 PM PDT

•  no surprise here , St Nader knew NH was OK

  or he would not have asked for a recount.

  Remember St Nader got his money from the wingnuts.
  

  by JonBens on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 03:02:43 PM PDT

  •  I got into a pissing match on DU

    for suggesting this.  I proposed that Nader requesting the recounts was the equivalent of the TANG memos, ulitmately helping to counter any discrediting of E-voting.
    It turns out that a couple of DUers asked and persuaded Nader themselves to request the recount.
    In the end it seems it (the recount) proved nothing.

    by NYFM on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 03:13:31 PM PDT

    •  I will bet my house OH recount will be OK too

      because we don't have access to the machines' black boxes. That's what we should screaming about.

      We need to get the black boxes and programs running these machines. I can think of several ways to hide the real results very easily.

      Watch out, the wingnuts now will use NH result to shout out loud that Dems are all sore losers.

       

      by JonBens on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 03:37:41 PM PDT

      •  70% of Ohio is punch card

        They will hand recount 3%,and then more if errors appear.

        by nemesis enforcer on Fri Dec 10, 2004 at 07:48:16 AM PDT

•  The exit polls I saw

  showed Kerry ahead 15! points in NH. There was no match there.
  Link:
  http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/early_exit_polls_kerry_win_1102.htm

  I was checking Slate all day on 11/2.

  by nemesis enforcer on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 03:05:55 PM PDT

•  wrong data

  The data you're quoting have been re-weighted according to the supposed actual vote count. The 4 pm exit polls had Kerry winning in a landslide in NH (something like 12% as I recall - am too lazy to google it right now). The final badge of exit polls, collected up to the time the polls closed, has not been released, and the media organizations sitting on it have made it clear that they're not planning to release it any time soon. Which means we don't know whether there is, in fact, a discrepancy or not. But if you look into the discussions among the polling meisters over at Mystery Pollster etc. - the people who of course know the final exit poll numbers - it's pretty clear that there was indeed a huge discrepancy.

  What Nader's recount seems to suggest is that the discrepancy was indeed caused by faulty sampling methods. Unless, that is, Nader picked the wrong counties/precincts. At the center of the debate over possible election fraud in OH and FL have been heavily democratic counties. Does anyone know whether the counties Nader targeted likewise fit this bill? I'm asking b/c it strikes me that as far as tempering w/ voting machines or the vote tabulation goes, possible repub fraudsters might as well have targeted heavily republican counties/precincts - wouldn't it be much easier for them to get away with it there?
  

  by brainwave on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 03:19:33 PM PDT

  •  Problem

    As I posted upthread, if there was a mismatch between "original" exit polls and the verified NH outcome, then that would to some extent prove that the Right Wing Noise Machine is actually right: the mismatch is the fault of the exit polls, not due to election rigging.

    This would then be similar to the UK 1992 election, in which people interviewed in exit polls were too "embarrassed" to admit they voted for right-winger John Major.

    If the New Hampshire exit polls were indeed off, that would be terrible for the "FRAUD!" folks, and great for the Right Wing Noise Machine.  For then New Hampshire would be a verified vote which mismatched the exit polls, thereby evidencing that the exit polls were indeed screwed up.  Hence, the Noise Machine is right: the Ohio/Florida mismatch with the exit polls was arguably down to the exit polls being inaccurate.

    If we have to resort to "what if Nader chose the wrong counties" etc, we start seeming desparate, and in denial.

    [For the record: I'm very much in the "We must investigate e-voting fraud, our very democracy depends on it!!" crowd, so don't get me wrong.]

    by perfecttiling on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 03:36:07 PM PDT

    •  oh I agree

      I believe the exit polls most likely were wrong. Problem is, I haven't seen any convincing explanation for why they were wrong. The pollsters' preferred hypothesis seems to be the repub response (or non-response) bias, analogous to what you're suggesting. But there's zero independent evidence for such a bias, as far as I can see. Why would the average shrub voter be more reluctant to admit who they voted for than the average Kerry voter? Since more undecideds broke for Kerry at the last moment, wouldn't you expect the opposite, if anything? One version I've heard is the "husband afraid of getting into hot water with his wife" story. How plausible is that, given that Kerry garnered a substantially smaller percentage of married women voters than Gore did? Nah, I dunno, it just doesn't quite add up - yet?

      by brainwave on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 04:11:08 PM PDT

•  bev harris

  it becomes unpleasant visiting kos if every thread ends up with someone suggesting bev harris has been 'discredited' 'somewhat discredited' or whatever. please stop the personal attacks.

  by dieboldit on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 03:27:47 PM PDT

  •  uhm - please clarify

    If Bev Harris is discredited by this or that event, I'd want to know - wouldn't you? So I suppose what you mean is stop gratuitous or unjustified attacks on her, right? (I believe we have no choice but to listen to both the conspiracy theorists and the debunkers at the moment.)

    by brainwave on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 04:18:51 PM PDT

•  I thought

  Nader picked the wards to recount because of the "glaring discrepency" of those particular ward between the exit polls and the reported vote. How can the recount agree with both?

  by Tomtech on Thu Dec 09, 2004 at 05:51:42 PM PDT