NationStates Jolt Archive

Beware, lest he gore you upon his pointy ears, or sick his terrifying spouse upon thee!

Dennis Kuchinich wants a recount in New Hampshire. But, seriously, Dennis the Menace is howling about the injustice of it all, once again. Never mind that this perennial Democratic wannabe-candidate will once again be blasted out of the water by the competition, never mind that this won't change his vote counts, and never mind that his seat in Congress is maintained through the gerrymandering compromises in the Ohio legislature, he still likes to be heard.

Linktasm (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

EDIT: Also, that picture next to the article just looks so...so...weird.

I heard it on the radio and thought I was mistaken.

Does he really think he will magically win?

Am I right to say it seems the cries of a sore loser?

What is it with Democrats and recounts when they lose?

EDIT: Also, that picture next to the article just looks so...so...weird.

Yep. I was about to ask about the Elf thing until I got to it.

Beat ya to it by 15 hours... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=547245)

This isn't about Kucinich being a 'sore loser' at all.

Sucking up to Obama?

Beware, lest he gore you upon his pointy ears, or sick his terrifying spouse upon thee!

Dennis Kuchinich wants a recount in New Hampshire. But, seriously, Dennis the Menace is howling about the injustice of it all, once again. Never mind that this perennial Democratic wannabe-candidate will once again be blasted out of the water by the competition, never mind that this won't change his vote counts, and never mind that his seat in Congress is maintained through the gerrymandering compromises in the Ohio legislature, he still likes to be heard.

Linktasm (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

EDIT: Also, that picture next to the article just looks so...so...weird.

From the older thread's OP:

Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.


This isn't about Kucinich being a 'sore loser' at all.

This isn't about Kucinich being a 'sore loser' at all.

Then it can be about his penchant for wackiness.

Then it can be about his penchant for wackiness.

From the old thread:


Kucinich Seeks NH Dem Vote Recount
Jan 10, 10:40 PM (ET)
By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted. The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.

Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had "every confidence" the results are accurate.

In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."

Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.

Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount.

Scanlon said his office had received several phone calls since Tuesday, mostly from outside the state, questioning the results. New Hampshire's voting machines are not linked in any way, which Scanlon says reduce the likelihood of tampering with results on a statewide level. Also, the results can be checked against paper ballots.

"I think people from out of state don't completely understand how our process works and they compare it to the system that might exist in Florida or Ohio, where they have had serious problems," he said. "Perhaps the best thing that could happen for us is to have a recount to show the people that ... the votes that were cast on election day were accurately reflected in the results. And I have every confidence that will be the case."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080111/D8U3EBKG0.html

Not exactly wackiness.

Not exactly wackiness.

Rather, I would tend to disagree.

The reliability of exit polling has already been called into question, especially since 2004, when the substantial weaknesses, and selection biases that impacts exit pollsters was revealed. To regard that, or a differentiation from previous polling as evidence of a flawed election is neither well advised, or particularly legitimate.

As for the hand/machine count difference, this is easily explained. The areas most likely to support Obama were the less densely populated areas suburban and rural areas, the areas more conducive to hand counts, where the concentration of independents is highest. Clinton drew most of her support from the areas with higher population densities of New Hampshire, where the confirmed Democrats (her power base) will be, where machine counts are the most efficient.

Second, because of how machine counts operate, especially in this instance, for there to be a problem, there would have to be a massive, organized systemic fraud for there to be problems.

Even the most minute analysis indicates that Mr. Kucinich need not be worried, and that he's just seeing swamp gas.

I heard it on the radio and thought I was mistaken.

Does he really think he will magically win?

Am I right to say it seems the cries of a sore loser?


I think it's more that he thinks Hillary didn't win...

Rather, I would tend to disagree.

The reliability of exit polling has already been called into question, especially since 2004, when the substantial weaknesses, and selection biases that impacts exit pollsters was revealed. To regard that, or a differentiation from previous polling as evidence of a flawed election is neither well advised, or particularly legitimate.

As for the hand/machine count difference, this is easily explained. The areas most likely to support Obama were the less densely populated areas suburban and rural areas, the areas more conducive to hand counts, where the concentration of independents is highest. Clinton drew most of her support from the areas with higher population densities of New Hampshire, where the confirmed Democrats (her power base) will be, where machine counts are the most efficient.

Second, because of how machine counts operate, especially in this instance, for there to be a problem, there would have to be a massive, organized systemic fraud for there to be problems.

Even the most minute analysis indicates that Mr. Kucinich need not be worried, and that he's just seeing swamp gas.

Even if his worry is probably for nothing, it is hardly wacky to want to be sure the count is accurate.

Even if his worry is probably for nothing, it is hardly wacky to want to be sure the count is accurate.

While, yes, it isn't wacky to want the vote counts to be accurate, many of the implicit assumptions in what he's talking about are. Further, his willingness to commit his campaigns extremely limited resources to this course of action engender even greater questions on this matter in particular.

While, yes, it isn't wacky to want the vote counts to be accurate, many of the implicit assumptions in what he's talking about are.

Well, he found enough initiative to pay for the recount himself, so for him at least there's enough evidence.

Further, his willingness to commit his campaigns extremely limited resources to this course of action engender even greater questions on this matter in particular.

This I can agree with. Why exactly the campaign (who is still against both of them) is paying for it raises a question of the possibility of an ulterior motive.

EDIT: BTW, I didn't see that particular part at first

I like Kucinich and want to bang his wife


I think he could get a lot more votes if they had her in all of his campaign commercials.

The reliability of exit polling has already been called into question, especially since 2004, when the substantial weaknesses, and selection biases that impacts exit pollsters was revealed.
Nothing was revealed that explains the 2004 discrepancies. The concern that that election was stolen was never really rebutted; it was simply swept under the rug because it was too disturbing to contemplate.

I like Kucinich and want to bang his wife

Kucinich was such an awful mayor that he was defeated by a Republican: Think about that. Cleveland elected a Republican over an incumbent Democrat. There's something wrong with the dude's executive capabilities if that's the case. He was a disaster for Cleveland, and he'd be even worse for the country.

Not to mention his misattribution, or incorrect attribution of the origin of many of his ideas, particularly the "Department of Peace" one. I doubt Dennis Kucinich would ever support Benjamin Rush's concept for such an institution, never mind that Kucinich constantly cites Rush as support for his concept of it.

Rather, I would tend to disagree.

The reliability of exit polling has already been called into question, especially since 2004, when the substantial weaknesses, and selection biases that impacts exit pollsters was revealed. To regard that, or a differentiation from previous polling as evidence of a flawed election is neither well advised, or particularly legitimate.

As for the hand/machine count difference, this is easily explained. The areas most likely to support Obama were the less densely populated areas suburban and rural areas, the areas more conducive to hand counts, where the concentration of independents is highest. Clinton drew most of her support from the areas with higher population densities of New Hampshire, where the confirmed Democrats (her power base) will be, where machine counts are the most efficient.

Second, because of how machine counts operate, especially in this instance, for there to be a problem, there would have to be a massive, organized systemic fraud for there to be problems.

Even the most minute analysis indicates that Mr. Kucinich need not be worried, and that he's just seeing swamp gas.

They're Diebold voting machines, from what I understand.

Which have effectively zero security, as anyone who follows such things would know. Cracking them to rearrange the vote count a little would be quite easy, especially for a group with sufficient funding. Hell, I could do it with a million bucks to hire assistants.

Nothing was revealed that explains the 2004 discrepancies. The concern that that election was stolen was never really rebutted; it was simply swept under the rug because it was too disturbing to contemplate.

Actually, there was a substantial element of unconscious selection that occurred in 2004, especially in Ohio. Studies undertaken have shown that people running exit polls are more likely to interview people who are in a demographic group more like their own, especially in relation to age. So, what has been discovered is that a radically disproportionate number of exit pollsters were extremely young (especially college students). And that they unconsciously selected people similar to them to interview for exit polls, thus providing a skewing effect in regards to age, a demographic group that was also more likely to vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Not only that, but I have had the fundamental flaws of the Penn State study demonstrated in class by a stats prof. He showed that their range of standard deviations was unreasonable, and not in line with what would usually be used.

And, finally, exit polls are partial samples, whilst the overall election returns are not so.

They're Diebold voting machines, from what I understand.

Which have effectively zero security, as anyone who follows such things would know. Cracking them to rearrange the vote count a little would be quite easy, especially for a group with sufficient funding. Hell, I could do it with a million bucks to hire assistants.

Except for the fact that there are security measures in place that would prevent you from being able to hack a Diebold voting machine, without direct physical access. Amongst other factors, the Diebold machines, much like traditional ballot boxes, are secured physically to prevent access for tampering. So, while theoretically vulnerable, you would need to gain access to the equipment first, bypassing both the county board's of elections physical security, and the physical security built into the machine (including keylocks protecting access points, and smart card verification).

I've was employed by my county for the certification of our Diebold touchscreen voting machines, I have had extensive experience with these machines, and a degree of expertise and association with the real world circumstances surrounding their actual security.

Except for the fact that there are security measures in place that would prevent you from being able to hack a Diebold voting machine, without direct physical access. Amongst other factors, the Diebold machines, much like traditional ballot boxes, are secured physically to prevent access for tampering. So, while theoretically vulnerable, you would need to gain access to the equipment first, bypassing both the county board's of elections physical security, and the physical security built into the machine (including keylocks protecting access points, and smart card verification).

I've was employed by my county for the certification of our Diebold touchscreen voting machines, I have had extensive experience with these machines, and a degree of expertise and association with the real world circumstances surrounding their actual security.

So you know a great deal about these machines eh. Veeerrry interesting.

So, Where were you on the night of January 8th?

Click Stand;13364416']So you know a great deal about these machines eh. Veeerrry interesting.

So, Where were you on the night of January 8th?

Chillaxin'...somewhere... *shifty eyes*

I found Huckabee's picture more amusing.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/11/art.huckabeemuseum.ap.jpg

I found Huckabee's picture more amusing.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/11/art.huckabeemuseum.ap.jpg

He looks like he's ready and on his way to rape fifty children at an orphanage...

Is that his wife? Oh. My. God. Under no conditions can such a woman be our first lady.

That's his wife? I thought it was Hillary Clinton's brother.

jk... kinda

I found Huckabee's picture more amusing.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/11/art.huckabeemuseum.ap.jpg

Is that his wife? Oh. My. God. Under no conditions can such a woman be our first lady.

I heard it on the radio and thought I was mistaken.

Does he really think he will magically win?

Am I right to say it seems the cries of a sore loser?

A la Chris Crocker Leave Dennis alone!

Actually, I don't think he thinks he will win, as the excerpt below indicates.
In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."

In Iowa, Kucinich said that he wanted his supporters to pick Obama as a second choice. There is no second choice option in New Hampshire, but I'm guessing he wants to see whether or not Obama was cheated out of votes. I can understand that, although I don't think a recount will change the results, the primary was close enough Kucinich would want to double-check.