How John Edwards Can (Still) Win the New Hampshire Primary

[emlev]

(This is my first article on OpEdNews, just published this morning!)

I want to state up front that a John Edwards victory is not my goal. What I strive for is a true democracy in this country with fair, transparent, and accurate elections. Because the New Hampshire primary--with approximately 60% of its precincts counted by the same Diebold optical scanners that were shown to be hackable in Florida--was not transparent, we cannot know if it was fair or accurate. As my colleague Brad Friedman reported on New Hampshire's election night, we have reason to question the fairness and accuracy of the NH primary: polls taken just prior to the election looked to be extremely accurate everywhere but for the Clinton and Obama percentages in the Democratic presidential primary



Democrats need their candidates to demand a swift and thorough investigation of the New Hampshire primary election. And John Edwards is in the best position to begin the call. Clinton won't do it (I predict, but I'm happy to be proven wrong) because she's the announced winner. Obama won't do it (same parenthetical comment) for fear of being called a "sore loser." While I believe that Kucinich truly understands the issues and supports the goals of the election integrity movement, given his recent support of Obama in Iowa, I think a Kucinich call for an investigation would be seen by many as a pro-Obama move, not a pro-democracy move. Richardson, having gotten his state of New Mexico to switch from DRE (often called touch-screen) technology to optical scanners that count paper ballots, is unlikely to want to point out the problems with that technology. Late word is that Richardson will withdraw from the race on Thursday. And Gravel simply doesn't have a loud enough voice.

As Kerry's running mate in the 2004 election, Edwards knows the importance of following up on questionable election results. Edwards is believed to have urged Kerry not to concede in 2004. Now he doesn't need Kerry's or anyone else's permission to go after full accountability. He need not even question his announced third place finish in New Hampshire. By demanding an investigation of the New Hampshire Democratic primary results, Edwards can show the leadership Democratic voters want to see on an issue that must secretly eat away at every one of the candidates: What would I do if I get the nomination and the election is stolen from me?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_emily_le_080110_how_john_edwards_can.htm">More

[MethuenProgressive]

1. BS

[emlev]

2. Funny, you responded so fast I'm guessing you only read the headline

Might try reading a bit of the article. It's not about Edwards. It's about democracy.

[winter999]

5. even so, it's still BS

[emlev]

6. I appreciate your cogent and well-constructed argument

[Melissa G]

25. ...

:rofl:

[emlev]

28. !

glad you liked it. I enjoyed it, too.

[ORDagnabbit]

3. I agree. our "leaders" need to lead by example...

demand transparent and verifiable elections by not accepting any results that have not had a hand count compared to machine count.

NH is small and very easy to do. All ballots are cast on paper and they are counted one of two ways.

1. by hand

2. by machine

[emlev]

4. Thanks. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. Nobody could accuse them of being "pointy heads"... If you strum

your lips, they won't feel out of their depth.

[helderheid]

7. K&R! Excellent article

[emlev]

9. Thank you!

[kster]

8. K&R.nt

[emlev]

18. Thank you, Kster n/t

[D23MIURG23]

10. There is no good evidence of anything wrong with the NH primary

Fallible methods (voting machines) alone don't imply failure.

[EFerrari]

14. There is no reason to have confidence in the result.

It was an election, not a magic trick.

[emlev]

15. You might consider beginning your research here:

Election Reform, Fraud and Related News--Thursday, Jan 10 SPECIAL NH REPORT


Or here at The BRAD BLOG:

# 1/8/08 - 'Problems' with Paper Ballots in State Inaccurately Reported by National Mainstream Media
# 1/8/08 - Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama

# 1/9/08 - Tribune Media: MSM Failed to Note 'Hackable Diebold Red Flags' in NH Primary Results
# 1/9/08 - New Docs: Exec at NH's Diebold Vote Counting Firm Convicted of Narcotics Trafficking
# 1/9/08 - 7 Point Swing for Clinton Over Obama in NH's Diebold Precincts
# 1/9/08 - Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in NH

Of course, there are many other places you could look. If you wanted to...

[D23MIURG23]

22. Here is my absolute favorite, and case in point

I just spent the last two hours putting together a spreadsheet of the Democratic results of the NH primary for each town with almost all but a few towns reporting, and the results were somewhat surprising.
...
I say "somewhat" because some people will say this entirely foreseeable. What the informal statistics show is that Hillary Clinton received a 4.5% boost in towns using Diebold voting machines compared to towns that didn't. Meanwhile, Obama was hurt in these towns showing a 2.5% decrease in the Diebold towns.(Ben Moseley, http://www.bradblog.com/)

Hey ever seen this?



Same logic.

P.S. If you can actually produce some raw exit poll data that is at variance with the election results, please do. That (unlike having a drug smuggling executive at Diebold) would be a smoking gun.

[robbedvoter]

11. "believed to have urged Kerry" - whatever happened to that urge?

How did Edwards fight the theft in 2004? Chamion our rights? let us know we didn't lose? Bueler? Anyone?
Shouldn't Edwards work on the 2004 first? The GE against Bush - rather than a primary against Hillary?

[emlev]

17. Perhaps it turned into the pent up energy I'm asking him to use right now!

Kerry's early concession in 2004 and failure to fight for democracy was an immense defeat not only for him, but for the Democrats and for democracy and the country in general. We need to know this time that whoever is the Dem candidate will not repeat that behavior. The point of my article is that the questions raised about the New Hampshire primary give candidates an opportunity to *show* the Party and the voters what they can be counted upon to do to pursue true democracy, not just talk about it. Questions such as yours about Edwards further my argument that he should be the one to lead the way.

[EFerrari]

13. Good job, emlev! We need to go to OpNews and digg it.

:applause:

[emlev]

16. Thank you!

[robinlynne]

19. Yes Yes Yes and Yes! I am shocked by the lack of overall vision, even here on DU,

and saddend to watch it happen over and over again. I think the citizens should be demanding it. Every last one. In other countries people riot for less.

[robinlynne]

20. Excellent thinking Emlev, thank-you.

But I do think that Obama should not be let off the hook so easily. He is, in NH, in the position Kerry was in in 2004 in Ohio (and New Mexico, and so many other states, but let's say Ohio). And Edwards would be "the green party in Ohio", the one who speaks.
Shouldn't Obama be cahrged with taking a stand, together with Edwards?
Edwards will be called a sore loser just as fast as Obama will. And he has less energy(time and money) to expend, because of the way the powers that be are trying to kick him out of the race.

[emlev]

21. You make excellent points

Like I said in the article, I think Edwards is most likely, but I'd be happy to be wrong and have B. Obama or H. Clinton do it!

[Melissa G]

26. We'll just have to settle for Kucinich

:)

[robinlynne]

27. !

[livvy]

23. Great article, emlev.

I have no candidate preference at this time, so the winner makes no difference to me. I do have a definite preference that the results are accurate, and that the primary was a fair and true reflection of the intent of the voters.

[EFerrari]

24. Don't forget to go digg the article at OpEdNews.

:kick: