For those of you who were under the assumption that we wouldn’t hear anything about elections conspiracies until the general election in November, think again. A quick Google search for the term ‘Diebold election fraud” turns up numerous results, not only from the 2004 elections which the Republicans apparently stole using these machines, but also from the recent New Hampshire primaries. Even as late as yesterday evening, nut roots were pushing the theory that the primary in New Hampshire was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton.

I imagine this will be a new theme with the left (and Ron Paul supporters) every time their candidate under performs. In their own minds one would have to be crazy to not support the same candidate that they do, and surely there aren’t enough crazy people to outvote them, right? It has never occurred to them that they may actually be the ones who aren’t playing with a full deck. As more and more facts get twisted about the recent primary in New Hampshire, more and more emotionally unstable people will jump aboard the conspiracy bandwagon for their free trip to the crazy farm.

Before you, or someone you know jumps aboard the nut roots conspiracy wagon though, take the time to examine the facts. For starters, these same people who have told us that Diebold rigged the 2004 elections because they are a Republican friendly corporation, are now telling us they have rigged the Democratic primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. If you were to take a serious look at the Democratic nominees, do you think you could find one that a Republican company would despise more than Hillary? I certainly can’t! Had a “Republican friendly” company rigged this election, they would have certainly done so in a way to guarantee a Hillary loss, not a Hillary win.

Another popular theory, one endorsed by John Hawkins is that the discrepancy is due to the Bradley effect:

What’s the Bradley Effect? The general idea is that whites lie to pollsters and falsely claim that they’re undecided or voting for a black candidate because they’re afraid that they’ll be thought of as racists if they tell the truth. The effect is named for Tom Bradley, but it has also appeared in high profile races featuring Harvey Gantt and Doug Wilder, both of whom produced results at the ballot box that were too far apart from the polling data to explain with conventional wisdom.

When I first heard this theory I though it may be possible this is what has happened. After all the Republican polls were pretty accurate, it was only on the Dem’s side where the numbers were skewed, and nothing strikes fear into the heart of a liberal more than the thought that they may be considered racist. After taking a second look at the numbers however I have decided this is incorrect as well.

In fact, a close look at the exit polls proves to me beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no conspiracy in New Hampshire, and there was no Bradley effect either.
The New Hampshire exit polls conducted by CNN were a sampling of 1955 voters as they left the polling stations. Of those 1955 voters, 43% (841) were men at 57% (1,114) were women. Clinton received 29% (244) of the male vote and 46% (512) of the female vote, while Obama received 40% (336) of the male vote and 34% (379) of the female vote. If you pull out your calculator you can quickly calculate that Clinton received 756 votes from those polled while Obama received 715 votes. On a percentage basis. Clinton had 38.6% while Obama had 36.5%.

If those numbers look familiar to you, they should. A look at the final vote counts for New Hampshire show Clinton with 39% and Obama with 37%. Had the polling discrepancies occurred due to the Bradley affect, it is likely it would have happened with the exit polls as well, which it clearly did not. Had there been some form of conspiracy by Diebold as the nut roots insist, exit polls would have confirmed Obama to be the winner, which they did not.

What really happened in New Hampshire to throw off the pre-primary polling numbers was an influx of new voters. Pollsters routinely ask respondents if they have voted in prior elections, when the answer is no, that person generally will not be included in the final poll. With New Hampshire having a record number of voters turn out, it is very likely many of them voted for Hillary, and those votes would not have been reflected in the polling. Another factor could have been Obama’s “inevitability”.

As reported by Scott Elliot at Election Projection:

Independents dominate the political landscape in New Hampshire, and they came out in droves. Conventional wisdom would predict a strong independent turnout benefits Obama. But there was another race on the ballot that New Hampshire independents could choose to participate in - the GOP primary. Perhaps the polls showing Obama stretching his lead over Clinton and Romney slightly edging closer to McCain enticed more independents to cast their vote in the GOP primary. The desire to make their votes count would steer them toward the closer race.

If after reading this you still feel there was a Diebold conspiracy at work in New Hampshire, please take off your tin foil hat, put the cool aid down and try reading it one more time.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Election 2008, Features, Liberals, Politics