Sunday, February 17, 2008

What The Clintons Won't Do To Win

Instead of spending so much time complaining about voter ID laws, Democrats might want to start asking questions about why Sen. Barack Obama's vote in the New York primary on Super Tuesday was undercounted. Believe it or not, precincts in Harlem reported on election night zero votes for Sen. Obama. You read that right. In predominantly black precincts, Sen. Obama registered zero votes. The NY Post reports on this shocking news, which is being ignored by many Democrats and the mainstream media:

Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly underrecorded in several districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said yesterday.

Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the board said.

In some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even closer to defeating Hillary Clinton.

Initial results in the 94th, for example, showed a 141-0 sweep for Hillary Clinton, but the recount changed the tally to 261-136.

As yet, none of the results have been certified, but a ballot-by-ballot canvassing of all voting machines has begun, a board spokesperson said. Many of the mistakes were chalked up to human error -- and some Clinton tallies were wrong as well. In several congressional districts she was shown as having received zero votes when in fact she got hundreds, Boe said. Brooklyn City Councilman Charles Barron called the understated figures "outrageous."

"I think this is an all-out effort to stop a campaign that is about to make history and render America's first black president," he said. "We need some kind of independent or federal agency to investigate this."These results indicate that she may not even come out the winner - Obama currently has 116 votes to her 118.
According to, Sen. Clinton received 1,003,623 votes to 697,941 votes in the Democratic New York primary. In light of the NY Post report, it's hard to accept the validity of those reported vote totals. It seems unfathomable to me that in the age of electronic voting, any error could result in failing to tally a single vote for a candidate in some precincts unless it was done deliberately. Democrats were very quick to claim that Republicans stole the 2000 and 2004 presidential races in the states of Florida and Ohio. I don't recall any evidence as glaring as what's reported in the NY Post about voting in New York to suggest voter fraud.

The New York Times assures us there was nothing sinister about the New York vote totals. "City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly — and unofficially — on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city," the newspaper reports. "City election officials said they were convinced that there was nothing sinister to account for the inaccurate initial counts, and The Times’s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Mrs. Clinton received zero votes in the initial results."


Anonymous said...

I support Barrack Obama for president. I want him credited for those votes and maybe it will give him an extra delegate or two. However, to try and put something sinister to this is a stretch. Computers are programmed and operated by humans which always leaves room for human error.

Stories have also surfaced that almost 250,000 Democrat primary votes remain uncounted in California. Perhaps you should look into that also. It involved the votes of independents who voted in the Dem primary.

Anonymous said...

That Democrats tamper with votes is really not news in Indiana. That Clintons lie is news nowhere.

Anonymous said...

Why do we seem to have such a difficult time running elections in this country?
Even Pakistan and Venezuela do a better job than we do.
Maybe we need a multinational group of watchers to oversee that elections in our country are legit.
We seem so intent insuring that other countries run fair elections yet we can't even run our own legitimately.

Anonymous said...

By the way, Gary, they do NOT have computerized machines in New York. They use the old lever type machines we used to use in Indiana. They are then NOT sent eletronically to headquarters but phoned in. Go read some of that on and find out the whole snark.