Mixed Messages

I saw some data this morning for the first time that seemed to support the demographic argument that Hillary won by winning big in the big cities. Look at this chart:

Take a look at just the hand counts in small, medium & large towns.

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY HAND COUNT PRECINCTS:

Clinton small 33.635% Obama small 39.591%
Clinton med 34.662% Obama med 38.823%
Clinton lg 44.172% Obama lg 31.605%

I have a good deal of faith in the New Hampshire hand counts. I have seen videos of how they are done, and they seem meticulous and open. So assuming these are accurate figures - they are said to be from data at politico.com - It looks like Obama is winning in small towns, but when you get into the large towns Clinton nails him by over 12%. There were even more large towns that voted by machine, so if she maintained that spread in most of the large towns, it's easy to see how she could overcome a 4-6% he lead he might have had in small and med sized towns.

There are some odd things happening in the Republican spread however. Romney seems to be ahead in the Machine count everywhere. And Huckabee lost almost 9% points between the machine count and the hand count in large towns. That's a little strange, since, except Romney all the other candidates did about the same when comparing same size towns.

I've been up all night, and I'm beat, so please check the charts yourself, but that's what it looks like to me.

The problem is really that the huge gaping holes in the Diebold security leave room for a lot of doubt and speculation. So it's hard to ignore blog posts like this:

"Update: Some more statistics from the data shows that Obama in non-Diebold towns garnering 38.7% of the vote to Clinton's 36.2%. The results in Diebold towns show the exact opposite: Clinton with 40.7% of the vote and Obama with 36.2%. Not only are the positions swapped but the informal statistics have the second place candidate holding 36.2% in both cases, which could easily be a pure coincidence. What doesn't make a lot of sense to me right now and this could be a mathematical mistake on my part is where Clinton got the extra 2% of votes in Diebold towns. All the other numbers almost exact for every candidate, even Edwards who recieved 17% of the vote in Diebold towns compared to 17.6% in non-Diebold towns. That still doesn't make up for the extra 2% vote Clinton is receiving when she leads in certain towns compared to when Obama has the lead."

Also, Chris Matthews has acknowledged that the exit polls showed Obama ahead. That's significant, because exit polls are always considered more reliable than preliminary polls.

I think it's important that the blogosphere try to get some coverage in the main-stream media (MSM - as they're known out here). I've written a note to the BBC, part of which I'll excerpt here:

"It is important that you handle the results of the New Hampshire primary with caution and healthy skepticism...

It is very difficult to say what happened in New Hampshire. There are aspects of the election that have never faced voters here - both a woman and an African-American as serious contenders for the Presidency for the first time. So it's hard to draw conclusions. But the security problems with the voting equipment are real, and add an element of suspicion to the entire process. This is leading many voters here to view the entire election as unreliable at best, and possibly a complete facade."

I liked the idea in one of Brad's comments to get Bev Harris on Oprah. I think that could open a lot of minds. The important thing is to get rid of the machines that are owned by companies like Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S, and put reliable, transparent counting methods such as hand counting, or machines and software that are owned and well-maintained by the state (that's what they have in Oklahoma). All machine counts need to be accompanied by parallel hand-counting in the precinct on the night of the elections.

Oh Kucinich is calling for a recount, along with one Republican candidate - Albert Howard. But if you read the Bradblog, you don't need me to tell you that. Brad Friedman deserves a blogger pulitzer for his 24/7 coverage of this story. (Although the comments there have gotten unpleasantly profane). And Holy Toledo Batman! Bev Harris' Op Ed about how the recount may not give us the answers is right below The LA Times and The Boston Globe on the google news links!!!

That made my day.