January 10, 2008
In the Meantime, In Between Time, Ain't We Got Fun?
By Michael Green
The New Hampshire Primary is a straightforward fraud in which electronic voting machines were programmed to shift votes away from Barak Obama and add votes to Hilary Clinton.
BradBlog has compared the vast discordance between pre-election polling and primary results, especially Zogby's, which predicted a 42-29 sweep for Obama over Hilary with only 5% undecided. Steven Freeman has asked for suggestions about how to pinpoint the likely mechanism of fraud if the hypothesis of fraud holds up, and has offered Ron Paul's breakdown's of the vote by machine vs. hand, and by town size. See http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530 and http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS (which has a link to REPUBLICANS).
Several points are worth emphasis. First, even the hand-counted paper ballots give Obama only a circa 4.1% victory, not a blow out, he loses more heavily to Clinton in large cities that were roughly 64% of the total vote. Thus, if you want to do the stats to see whether or not there was a fraud, try to obtain the breakdown of the polling data by town size from the pollsters. Was a blow-out expected in rural areas? If, for example, Obama was expected to beat Clinton evenly across the board, or was expected to run especially strongly in the big cities, then the case for fraud is very clear. The strongest case for fraud would have pre-polling favoring Obama by about 4.1% in rural areas where hand-counting occurred, and stronger in the big cities. This would indicate that the rigging was done primarily in urban areas through control of the electronic voting machines. The generally accurate pre-polling data with the reported results for all the other candidates, both Dems and Repubs, is the evidence for the fix.
Only two towns over 1,500 used Hand Counted Paper Ballots, but many towns under 1,500 used electronic means. The updated Ron Paul website has compared the results for hand counter paper ballots versus electronic voting machines for small and mid-size towns with dramatic results. In small towns Clinton's Electronic vs. HCPB results were + 3.733%. By contrast, Obama's were a negative, - 4.550%. That is, in small towns (<750 voters) electronic machines rewarded Clinton and punished Obama compared with HCPB that gave Obama a margin of victory of 5.96%. For medium towns (750-1500 voters), Clinton's electronic tally was 5.572% greater than her HCPB count, whereas Obama's was -4.257%. Obama beat Clinton in the hand count for medium towns by 4.16%. Unfortunately only two large towns (Claremont, Franklin) used HCPB, just 2.3% of their voters, so there is no meaninful comparison between Electronic and HCPB results within that group of voters for the simple reason that these two towns may not be a representative sample.
A good statistician can provide precise confidence levels, but for practical purposes the answer is clear enough: the electronic machines were programmed to record more votes for Hilary than she received and to record fewer votes for Obama than he received. The pre-polling was accurate. Just as in the 2004 election, HCPB tracked the votes as cast. As Professor Steven Freeman showed in his book, Was the 2004 Election Stolen?, for the 2004 presidential election only HCPB agreed with the National Exit Polls before they were adjusted to conform to the official count.
Second, as Brad Friedman remarked, the MSM is engaging in disinformation to make us distrust paper ballots; it may also be engaged in disinformation to make the public distrust exit polls, pre-polls and anything else except the official vote count. Distrusting pre-polls makes it easier to fix the Big One. Additionally, the "horse race" phenomenon speaks for itself to the appearance of vitality and integrity in the electoral process whether or not it has any.
Third, if the fix has been put in for Hillary, there are two scenarios which I adumbrated previously but are worth repeating. One scenario has the pseudo-liberal hawk Hilary as the first Madame President; the other has her put in the running seat of the Dems for the purpose of defeating her with a McCain-Huckabee ticket. Q: Why bother with fixing the Dem primary if one can fix the finals? A: In a "democracy" like ours it is always important to keep up appearances, and Hilary gives the best appearance of a Democratic candidate headed for honest defeat, one where the fix is easy, small, easily concealed, etc. Please keep in mind the CNN poll of who would do what in the Big One, viz., that Clinton would lose to McCain:
Yes, polls change constantly, but McCain is a fairly solid popular favorite, as is Huckabee -- who would pull in the religious right and who has said that McCain "is one of my heroes." McCain is pledged to winning the war in the Middle East even if it takes a hundred years, while Mike Huckabee -- in his policy statement published in Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 2008 -- has proven that he is on board with the Council on Foreign Relations' sophisticated foreign policy of NOT attacking Iran but in turning US attention to Pakistan (as the means of encroaching on China that is the US's major economic rival). Huckabee has gone so far as to say that Osama bin Laden wants the U.S. to attack Iran but that he prefers direct negotiations. Huckabee has also covertly "admitted" what 911 activists have known since a month post 911, viz., that Pakistan -- through its ISI chief General Mahmoud Ahmad whom the Times of India reported, confirmed by the FBI, directed Saeed Sheikh to send Mohammed Atta $100,000 shortly before 911 -- was directly involved in funding the "hijackers" to whom the caper is officially attributed (concealing that the ISI was developed by the CIA and serves foreign policy interests of the U.S. by facilitating "terrorists" to behave as needed). Huckabee writes:
Though nobody has a crystal ball, myself included, the McCain-Huckabee ticket is a Republican powerhouse and Hilary is the opponent-of-choice, and she would not be so bad for the corporate class if elected: recall her retort to Edwards during the debates that she would not agree to raise the Social Security tax cap above $97,000 "because that would hurt the poor and middle class" only to have Edwards reply that the poor and middle-class do not earn more than $97,000, only the well-to-do. Hilary, here as elsewhere, wore her allegiance to the ongoing transfer of wealth on her sleeve. Nonetheless, my odds-on bet is for a McCain-Huckabee ticket to beat a Hilary & friend in the Big One and the fixes, if needed, to support that end.
The Business Section of the New York Times seems to agree. David Leonhardt writes the day after the New Hampshire primaries in "McCain and Bush's Heirs" that after posturing as a liberal in the 1990's "with the 2008 Republican primaries drawing nearer, Mr. McCain tacked back. He now favors extending many tax cuts he once opposed, arguing repeal would amount to a tax increase." And, pandering to the rich albeit with a little spin for saving the environment, McCain told Charlie Rose in November “Tax cuts increase revenues” -- a vibrant echo of Reagan's voodoo supply-side "trickle-down" economics by making the rich even wealthier their tips would eventually improve the lot of the rest of us. While giving a liberal scolding, Leonhardt bestows his blessings on Huckabee as well:
I am a retired forensic psychologist living in Los Angeles with enough time on my hands to have spent the past few years studying the deeds whose perpetrators pejoratively deride the correct analysis of which as "conspiracy theories," i.e., USG intelligence community domestic covert operations -- fascist politics by unconventional means. A professor of analytic philosophy in a former career, I no longer embrace the Lotus Land argument that if you can work on your abs, then you are not living under a totalitarian state.