The New Hampshire numbers are quite interesting – as pointed out by Daily Kos, about half of the towns in that state hand-count their ballots. The towns are smaller, so this represents only about 20.7% of the total votes cast. The rest are counted by Diebold optical scanners, which are easily hackable, according to HBO’s documentary, Hacking Democracy.
Here’s an interesting summary of the results of the hand vs machine-counted votes:
Total votes cast: 238,909
Counted by hand 49,905
By machine 189,004
Romney’s percentage of hand-counted votes: 25.54%
Romney’s percentage of Diebold-counted votes: 31.48%
Romney’s gain on the machine side apparently came at the expense of Huckabee, McCain and Ron Paul, all of whom lost votes in roughly equal proportions. But McCain won nonetheless. It appears as though Romney’s Diebold bump was not enough to save him.
On the Democrat side, it’s the same story, but with a more significant altering of the outcome.
Total votes cast: 287,849
Counted by hand: 59,542
By machine 238,307
Clinton’s percentage of hand-counted votes: 34.66%
Clinton’s percentage of Diebold-counted votes: 40.12%
Clinton’s gain (15,717 votes, or a 5.46% bump) came mostly at Obama’s expense, though Richardson took quite a hit as well. If the hand-counted votes are representative of the state as a whole, Obama won handily.
Given the fact that exit polls are mostly withheld from us (I’ve heard nothing of exits on the Republican side, though two people have made revealing comments on the D side), and that there will not be a physical recounting of the votes, this is pretty much all we’ve got. To those of you who say that there was a last minute Clinton surge (unsupported by exit polls), why did it affect machine-counted votes only? Isn’t that odd?
Chris Mathews:
“So what accounts for Hillary Clinton’s victory in New Hampshire? What we don’t know is why the victory is so much different in fact, then the polling ahead of time, including what we call the Exit Polls were telling us. Obama was ahead in those polls by an average of 8 points, and even our own Exit Polls, taken as people came out of voting, showed him ahead. So what’s going on here?”
Piece of Mindful 
A couple of things. First, you are assuming causation, when correlation may be the more reasonable explanation.
Seems reasonable to assume that Huckabee has more support than Romney in the counties where hand-counted ballots predominate, just as Clinton enjoys more support there, given the demographics of her instate supporters.
BTW, Chris Matthews is insane when it comes to Clinton. He’d promote UFO abduction theories if somehow they supported his anti-Clinton bias. I.e., not a rational man, and one you shouldn’t probably quote if you want to make a case. Stick with Brad, baby.
LikeLike
You’re clawing for answers. You’re leaving scratch marks. Why don’t we just count the ballots? Seems we could all agree on that – it’s a small state, the process would be quick and dirty. But NO! No counting of ballots! The Democrats and Republcians and Kos are all in agreement on that. There’s both weird psychology and fraud at work here.
Mathews’ comment was significant because he commented on the (unadjusted) exit polls, which are otherwise kept secret from us.
LikeLike
I’m not “clawing” for answers. I’m no Clinton fan; I wouldn’t want to hand her NH. But I just don’t see it. Doesn’t make sense to me, not like 2004 Ohio. All the other explanations seem more plausible to me.
And it’s not “Democrats” and “Republicans,” it’s the other candidates who can demand a recount. Why isn’t Obama asking for a recount? Kucinich did, but he doesn’t want to pony up the cash. Why doesn’t he have a fundraising for a recount? You know he’d get the money online in a flash.
As for Matthews, his assertions about the exit polls may be factually correct, but his (weird and creepy) bias against Clinton puts into question his ability to think objectively about the results. If his Hillary obsession coincidentally reveals election fraud, great; but I wouldn’t rely on him as a reasonable source on any matter involving the 2008 election.
LikeLike
I cannot speak for the parties. I can see why Kucinich wouwld not want to use his own limited fundage for a recount. I do know this – the Dems have laid down on the fraud issue from the beginning, from Georgia 2002 all the way through this one. To ask now why they are not standing up is redundant.
And the reason why the Republicans would want Clinton is not hard to understand – she is easily he most beatable of the candidates with the highest negatives. Obama could well catch a wave – it’s been a long time since we’ve had a candidate with any Kennedyesque qualities. He could bring ’em out.
I’ve never been a fan of Mathews – I didn’t like him before we went “insane” – that is, started pushing non-mainstream lines. I think I’d like to reposition the entire matter – how come exit polls are secret?
LikeLike
(I’m not calling him “insane” for pushing “non-mainstream lines,” I’m calling him insane for obsessing about Hillary Clinton, sexually harassing colleagues on air, etc & co. )
LikeLike
The exit polls – the exit polls. Why is it so hard to get you to focus?
LikeLike
I didn’t answer, because I don’t know the answer to the question. I was sure the question was only rhetorical, anyway…
LikeLike
Surely you know that it matters greatly.
LikeLike
Look, I’m as concerned about election integrity as anyone. But I don’t see it. I don’t see motive. I don’t see Obama reacting. I see plenty of reasonable explanations accounting for the discrepencies. Your argument isn’t entirely convincing. That’s my opinion. It’s worth every penny you pay for it.
But, sure! Let’s count the votes! Let’s have done with the controvesey and end the uncertainty. I don’t disagree with that.
And we both know Kucinich could raise enough cash online in about 12 hours to do a recount. H*ll, Chris Matthews would probably pitch in a couple thou.
So, Mark, why are exit polls secret?
LikeLike
As I see it, the exit polls are secret because they are an effective audit tool on election integrity, and they point to problems. The media ain’t exactly behind this election fraud issue, and would jump all over anyone who brought it up, hence canddiate temerity. I doubt Kucinich has the money you think he does by the way.
Account for one big discrepancy: Until 2004, with four exceptions (three of which involved a candidate named “Bush”, exit polls were deadly accurate. What went wrong?
LikeLike
Electronic voting machines. They suck.
LikeLike