Home » Blog » Report from the Counting Table
Blog for America
Report from the Counting Table
Linked to groups: Rockingham/Strafford DFA
Yesterday, I participated in the hand re-count of New Hampshire presidential primary ballots as an observer. For those looking for a comprehensive analysis of the results, sorry to disappoint, but ballot counters don't get to see the whole picture and we didn't get to see the totals from the other seven groups.
Yes, there were eight groups of ballot counters. Each group had two counters, individuals hired by the Sec. of State on a per diem basis because of their familiarity with the process (there are recounts annually for some of the legislative or town elections), who were observed by at least two volunteer observers from the campaigns. Actually, I was only aware of Kucinich and Clinton people, but only Kucinich is paying for this exercise.
The group I was in did two voting precincts totaling about 2000 ballots. First we watched the separation of ballots as they were taken out of the "sealed" boxes the election supervisors had forwarded (cardboard boxes of various sizes that were sealed with packing tape and had a certifying placcard with official signatures attached so they had to be cut to open the box. The ballots are on stock of various thicknesses, even among the official ballots. Some places obviously ran out of Democratic ballots and ran some off on xerox machines of regular paper which couldn't be counted by the opti-scans and had to be hand counted at the voting place. Because they'd already been counted by hand, they tended to already be sorted by party and saved us some time. But, because the paper is thin, they're more difficult to count by hand. Many of the ballots as they came out of the boxes were rather bent and wrinkled and one suspects that running them back throught the opti-scans for a machine re-count would not work real well.
After the Dem ballots were separated and the Rep ballots put back into boxes and sealed and witnessed, the counters read off the names of the candidate marked and after showing the ballot to the observers placed them in stacks for Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Richardson, other, write-in and anomalies (double votes and no votes)
Our second batch from the town of Pelham had more write-in votes for Romney and McCain than Kucinich got.
After the ballots from a district or town were all sorted and the anomalies were photographed (a check mark next to a name, rather than the oval being filled in, e.g.) each of the stacks was counted by one counter into stacks of 25 and then recounted by the other counter to verify. And as each candidate was done, the ballots were totaled and recorded on a sheet with the names of all candidates. The votes for Vice President were not counted or recorded. When all ballots were recorded they were put back into boxes and taped and resealed to go back into storage.
I understand that the SoS is putting running totals up on the web site. The information wasn't provided to the workers and volunteers. There were a few news people around today. I saw Bev Harris in the morning and Mainefem's Jean Hay Bright. It's my understanding that the Republican candidate's check has been received and deposited and the count will take place after the Dem count is done.
The Clinton campaign has send a huge contingent of observers, but it's my understanding that, for all their interest, they're not putting any money into the pot. Neither are any of the verified voting groups.
***********************************
The archives building is in a sort of state office park of what used to be primarily state hospital facilities and grounds. For lunch we were directed to the cafeteria of the state hospital but were assured that the Tobey School would be a closer walk and features a cafeteria on the first floor, as well. It's likely that this old brick building was also part of the state mental hospital complex. A receptionist directed us through several fire doors to a small "restaurant" with a big fish tank, a sign welcoming Governor Lynch on the bulletin board and a hand carved sign over the service counter asking patience because the staff are students in vocational training.
We chose sandwiches much like those you'd make at home and, together with a drink, shelled out three bucks each. On my way out of the building, I asked the receptionist about the nature of the school and she gave me a brochure to take along. Seems like the Tobey School is an alternative school for special needs students which, according to one of my counting mates, includes youth who are too young to send to prison for their crimes. The brochure does describe residential facilities for up to 24 youth. The rest are day students. In the old days it would probably have been referred to as a reform school.
Show: Expand All Reply
Linda wrote "Surely you're not trying to infer that because one race of 50, only the 3rd down, TRYING TO OVERLOOK his 2nd place showing with 30 pct in the first in Iowa, and receiving 17 pct as 3rd in New Hampshire."
Yes, I'm inferring exactly that. Not on my own, of course. We've come to find historically that election season math tends to disclose certain verities to those people willing to recognize it.
Phil wrote "every single Edwards vote is one less potential Clinton voter"
This is slightly discomoding. I would not have presumed you will join the Clinton campaign once Edwards drops out.
4. well, thank you Tom, but historically you are incorrect. But that's ok. Historically Bill Clinton didn't win his first Primary 'til it went south in Georgia.
I would be more concerned over someone starting off with a win and losing since, when they were the Front runner for a year.
Monica, excellent work for integrity and democracy, thank you.
Well, it's been fun. Have good ones.
Mike wrote "there IS one random element with Mccain and this is a big one......perpetual war like he has elaborated...........are Amerians sick of this war stuff already?"
I agree with you. By a wide margin, McCain is the Republican most associated with the Bush war agenda, having criticized the elder Bush for failing to rid Iraq of Saddam following the first Gulf War and openly campaigned on the rogue state rollback doctrine.
He criticized Bush's handling of the war, but showed solidarity in supporting the attack and our continued presence there. The degree to which voters view Iraq as a major issue will have an enormous effect on his prospects for election. I always assumed that the war would diminish as an issue by next November because I never envisioned that Bush and his small group of hidebound supporters would allow it to wear on after such disastrous results.
However, even the supposed success of the recent escalation in the troop level is doing nothing more in the popular opinion than convincing voters that we should be dumping this mess on the new government and departing. At this point, I would assume that the war will trail off in importance in the mind of the electorate by November, but would not guess that predictions of our presence in the region for the next 100 years will form a compelling argument in favor of a McCain presidency regardless.
Linda wrote "well, thank you Tom, but historically you are incorrect."
So you say. We'll certainly find out.
After yesterday, I have a better understanding of how caucuses work and have to say that I believe they disfranchise more voters than primaries.
In Nevada it almost all boiled down to one county (Clark) for Hillary though Obama won most all of the state. I guess that's how she got more votes and he more delegates.
That winter blast is headed our way...those up north take care with 30 below windchills by morning.
Going to miss the Pats/Chargers game for a meeting with a gubernatorial hopeful (Anthony Pollina)...maybe can be back to catch the second of the Patriot's win. Will be back in time to see the Pack smack the Giants.
bbl
Obama is in a dangerous spot with a state next that has a large African American population that he will carry by a large margin making him look like "the" black candidate. You can bet Clinton folks will point that out.
Edwards needs to stick around for a month at least to keep that conversation honest, because a negative Clinton campaign against Obama might work to reduce him, but the voters won't have to go to her.
I have a better understanding of how caucuses work and have to say that I believe they disfranchise more voters than primaries.
They drive down turnout and are easily manipulated. Caucuses suck along with the entire staggered primary system.
Obama is in a dangerous spot with a state next that has a large African American population that he will carry by a large margin making him look like "the" black candidate.
That's what Pat Buchanan says too. I find such talk distasteful.
Phil wrote "Obama is in a dangerous spot with a state next that has a large African American population that he will carry by a large margin making him look like "the" black candidate. You can bet Clinton folks will point that out."
As a Clinton supporter in the near future, you must find this prospect exciting.
Reed
I have found that at about ten below the temperature drop has a log scale expotential negative effect with brittle metal, freezing pipes, and painful eyeballs
twenty below is a whole lot more dangerous drop from ten below than ten below is from zero
I'm only going out by necessity, I can't imagine sitting in a stadium after dark tonight, the fans will be LOUD just to stay warm
take care at work
If Hillary gets the nomination I'll be working on Tom Harkin's re-election because I'll want him to carry the state even if she can't.
Historically Bill Clinton didn't win his first Primary 'til it went south in Georgia.
You're actually describing Obama's possible "comeback" this year since Clinton's in 1992 was based on the votes of southern African-Americans.
<>SC Primary, RCP avg 1/14-1/18:
- <>O: 43.2 %
- C: 33.6 %
- E: 13.2 %
Anyone who is interested in reading the DNC primary and convention rules, here is the link:
I'll want him to carry the state even if she can't.
"If" being the operative word in that sentence.
Phil and all those in the COLD Zone, stay warm and take care.
Hope the puters don't freeze up either:)
A January NIGHT time game in Green Bay is insane.
Surely the TV audience would be just as huge in the early afternoon.
In a way though, the chilled playoff games are a bit reassuring.
We still have a chance to mitigate global warming.
I don't think Hillary can carry Iowa.
Sitka wrote "Linda is] actually describing Obama's possible 'comeback' this year since Clinton's in 1992 was based on the votes of southern African-Americans."
Possible, although I'd hate to think the poll numbers in South Carolina one week out from the primary could be less reliable than the numbers that came from New Hampshire. Obama may have to show a vulnerable moment of tender emotion on national television to seal a victory.
when does the lickin of the Chargers commence? I best get at my evening chores soon
I could see how a Obama win in South Carolina would work to Clinton's advantage, is my point, so she might just let it happen and concentrate her campaign on the Feb 5th states.
Phil Specht
Sun, 01/20/08
Reply to this
Obama is in a dangerous spot with a state next that has a large African American population that he will carry by a large margin making him look like "the" black candidate. You can bet Clinton folks will point that out.
Clinton was more than 20 points ahead just a month or so ago, in SC. The Clintons consider themselves the "black candidate" and laid claim to SC as their territory, not Obama's.
They would be conceding Obama as the NEW black candidate.
I don't think Hillary can carry Iowa.
That was obvious. But you can't possibly know it since Clinton and Gore won it in their elections.
Guess away.
<>I could see how a Obama win in South Carolina would work to Clinton's advantage, is my point, so she might just let it happen and concentrate her campaign on the Feb 5th states
<>That's a very contemptuous attitude toward Democratic voters if it's considered a strength that Bill Clinton carried AA voters, but for Obama it's a weakness.
You should leave that rap to the Buchanans.
I called the causus results right in Iowa months before they happened.(basic three way tie with the winner being someone who never voted for the war) I may not know diddly about California politics, but I do know a tiny bit more than someone from Arizona about Iowa. Hillary as candidate will totally energize and unite a now dispirited and divided Republican Party here and make for a close election up and down the ticket. (don't ask me to explain the Republican mind I just have talked to enough to get a glimpse)
Possible, although I'd hate to think the poll numbers in South Carolina one week out from the primary could be less reliable than the numbers that came from New Hampshire.
I was pointing out to Linda that the very people who made Bill's "comeback" in the south possible now seem to be overwhelmingly for Obama.
And I find the suggestion being made by Phil that such support will hurt Obama with other voter groups (especially when it never hurt Clinton) to be something which sets back rather than moves forward.
Phil wrote "Hillary as candidate will totally energize and unite a now dispirited and divided Republican Party here and make for a close election up and down the ticket."
This can't be your rationale for supporting her candidacy. What gives?
Sitka wrote
"I was pointing out to Linda that the very people who made Bill's 'comeback' in the south possible now seem to be overwhelmingly for Obama.
"And I find the suggestion being made by Phil that such support will hurt Obama with other voter groups (especially when it never hurt Clinton) to be something which sets back rather than moves forward."
Your points seem sensible to me, but Linda and Phil are Edwards supporters, so normal logic doesn't seem to have the same influence on them.
I don't have a dog in that fight (oops probably shouldn't use a Mike Vick racially motivated conviction as a phrase)
just the facts
Hillary gets to use her "historic" cohort, but if Obama does, it catogorizes him at one group is 50+% of primary voters and the other 20% max so it works to Clinton's favor to try and make this the battle of "history"
so if we talk these things out before they happen we can avoid splintering the party
leave that to Republicans
I called the causus results right in Iowa months before they happened.(basic three way tie with the winner being someone who never voted for the war)
Three way tie?
O:38% E:30% C: 29%
You obviously didn't "guess" right.
I'll state again for the record. I am an Obama delegate. so it is quite unlikely I'm supporting Clinton
Phil wrote "it is quite unlikely I'm supporting Clinton."
But you wrote "Edwards votes are a subtraction from Clinton with that fairly large group that aren't buying what Obama is selling but don't like a pro-corporate War Party candidate. [E]very single Edwards vote is one less potential Clinton voter."
What does it mean that an Edwards vote is one less potential Clinton vote?
Tom wrote:Your points seem sensible to me, but Linda and Phil are Edwards supporters, so normal logic doesn't seem to have the same influence on them.
Your sarcasm ever present, still you should have stated correctly, being we are normal and you seem to generate from the river of denial.
As much as you all are trying to spin and distort, the reality is your guessing, triangulaating and projecting means little in the real world where events happen regardless without respect to your words.
And, regardless of what happens in South Carolina, the events of past that you are trying to compare to are ALREADY DIFFERENT, so it still boils down to......spin cycle stuck. :)
Phil wrote "every single Edwards vote is one less potential Clinton voter"
You must admit that you boxed yourself into a rhetorical corner with that statement, Phil.
But it's patently absurd to say that every Edwards vote would go to Clinton. I would guess an even split of them without Edwards in the mix, with some people not even bothering to vote (and I don't pretend it's anything but a guess).
Letter to AFSCME President McEntee
http://thepage.time.com/letter-to-afscme...
January 4, 2008
Gerald McEntee
International President
AFSCME
1625 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear President McEntee:
We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign
that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that
such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was
ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made
its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.
In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the
IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong
field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive
impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing
Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of
the other candidates or that she would be the better president for
working families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the
most likely primary victor, and the strongest general election
candidate.
While some of us did not agree with the decision to endorse Sen.
Clinton, we all recognized that once the endorsement was made, AFSCME
would have to expend a certain amount of resources on her behalf in
order to give weight to its action. While the Board was informed at
that time that procedures for independent expenditures had been
established, there was never any discussion of how those expenditures
would be made.
None of the information presented to the International Executive Board
suggested in any way that AFSCME intended to utilize its resources to
attack the other Democratic candidates. In fact, a number of IEB
members stressed-either privately or in their comments at the meeting-
how much they respected and admired Sen. Obama. And at least one Board
member spoke passionately against the Democratic candidates attacking
each other, arguing that such negativity would damage Democratic
prospects in the General Election.
We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through
"independent expenditures"-is squandering precious resources to wage a
costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack's
standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports
AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out
mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his
candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the
explicit purpose of "opposing Barack Obama."
While we would not approve of attacks on any of the Democratic
candidates in this race, all of whom have good relationships with our
union, it is worth noting that AFSCME has chosen to attack only one of
those candidates, Barack Obama.
It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging
against Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with
past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing
individuals to purchase health care even when they can't afford it.
The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they
are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in
their claims that Sen. Obama's health care plan will exclude 15
million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to
participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a "black eye" among
many in the media and the progressive community.
But even if the ads were not deceptive, we would object to the use of
our union's funds to attack a long-time friend of AFSCME members, a
candidate who has stood up strongly in support of workers' rights from
his earliest days as an elected official, a candidate who included the
importance of the right to form unions in his announcement speech, a
candidate who has been a forceful advocate for working families.
Supposedly, we are involved in this primary because we're concerned
about "access" to the next Democratic president. So why would we want
to develop a hostile relationship with the man who could be that next
president?
And supposedly, our union's fundamental commitment is to electing a
Democratic president in November. So why would AFSCME's national
political director threaten to dilute AFSCME's efforts in the General
Election if Senator Obama is the nominee? We were stunned to see these
kind of threats being made in the national media by one of our union's
primary spokespersons.
It is our understanding that this attack on Sen. Obama is being
carried out through independent expenditures which are not under your
direction, but that of two members of the International staff. As we
understand it, because of the legal "firewall" that exists, those two
staff members have essentially undertaken this assault on Sen. Obama
entirely on their own initiative without direction from or even
consultation with you. Certainly there has not been any direction from
the International Executive Board regarding this course of action. And
we do not believe that AFSCME members would expect or want their
PEOPLE dollars spent in this manner.
We are calling on you to take whatever action that is within your
legal purview to immediately end AFSCME's attack campaign against Sen.
Obama. In the event that you are not able to legally compel these
staff members to cease these actions, we are calling on you to
immediately take action to discontinue such independent expenditures
in order to ensure that no further attacks occur. And we also urge you
to ensure that no funds are utilized to wage such "attack campaigns"
among our own members.
The behavior of these two individuals-so clearly inimical to the
interests and allegiances of AFSCME members, as well as to
institutional democracy-arguably constitutes chargeable offenses under
the International constitution. It also calls into question the role
of such "independent expenditures" in our organization. We believe
that the IEB needs to carefully review the role that such expenditures
play in our activities in this election season and beyond.
At the last IEB meeting, when we all gathered for dinner, you raised
your glass in a toast to organizational unity, assuring us that we
would all come together to defeat the Republican candidate in
November. Today the actions of a few unelected union staff are placing
that unity in jeopardy and degrading the reputation of our great
union. We urge you to take whatever actions are necessary to see that
both are restored.
In solidarity,
Ken Allen, International Vice-President, Oregon Henry Bayer,
International Vice-President, Illinois Greg Devereux, International
Vice-President, Washington Sal Luciano, International Vice-President,
Connecticut Roberta Lynch, International Vice-President, Illinois George
Popyack, International Vice-President, California Eliot Seide,
International Vice-President, Minnesota
cc: Paul Booth
Lee Saunders
Larry Scanlon
International Executive Board
Linda wrote "Your sarcasm ever present, still you should have stated correctly, being we are normal and you seem to generate from the river of denial."
That seems a little sarcastic.
I'll continue to point out basic statistical concepts as they apply to elections. with three well operated national campaigns in Iowa with a caucus system and viability rules you come out with three "winners" (a tie), but if Richardson had caught fire that would have been the big news.
with only two in the race you just need to get every other voter plus one
with three in the race you have to get more than the other two combined to get a majority
Clinton will have a very hard time winning the nomination with Edwards in the race, so those trying to talk Edwards out are the likely closet Clinton supporters here
I'm not one.
Phil wrote "Clinton will have a very hard time winning the nomination with Edwards in the race, so those trying to talk Edwards out are the likely closet Clinton supporters here."
All right. Now analyze this statement and give me your honest response: "Obama will have a very hard time winning the nomination with Edwards in the race, so those trying to talk Edwards out are the likely closet Obama supporters here."
Well, most look at the candidate with the highest percentage and call that one the winner -- especially when it's by 8 points as in Iowa.
I imagine to most, calling it a tie just seems a way to spin it as a "win" for Edwards. But it hardly matters since he's only gone downhill since then.
Clinton will have a very hard time winning the nomination with Edwards in the race, so those trying to talk Edwards out are the likely closet Clinton supporters here
I haven't noticed anyone tring to talk Edwards out of the race and can't imagine why they'd bother with him dropping into Kucinich Kountry more every day.
Both the dream of Edwards as kingmaker and charge of him being a spoiler will fit in a pipe these days.
Obama won the delegate count in Nevada thanks to Edwards.
I haven't noticed anyone tring to talk Edwards out of the race
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sleepwalking through the blog again?
you guys are a riot
Obama won the delegate count in Nevada thanks to Edwards.
Can't argue with a statement that has no basis in fact to support it.
Sitka wrote "Well, most look at the candidate with the highest percentage and call that one the winner -- especially when it's by 8 points as in Iowa."
Particularly in the media headlines, but Phil does have a point I find valid. Obama had a newsmaking victory in the Iowa caucuses but received 16 delegates as a consequence, compared to Clinton's 15 and Edwards' 14.
Clinton’s so-called upset win in New Hampshire, on the other hand, netted her and Obama nine delegates apiece. Edwards got four. Her victory in the popular vote in Nevada actually got her one less delegate than Obama.
Tom Bearse
Sun, 01/20/08
Reply to this
Linda wrote "Your sarcasm ever present, still you should have stated correctly, being we are normal and you seem to generate from the river of denial."
That seems a little sarcastic.
+++
Tom -
That "river of denial" phrase was once very overused on this blog. I guess Linds NM believes in resurrections, that's why she's inferring that you've been to the land of the mummies, to the land of the silted Nile river in Egypt.
Ok, inquiring minds want to know: "Have you white-watered the White or the Blue one ?"
sleepwalking through the blog again?
No Phil, but both of my eyes are open. Try it yourself sometime.
you guys are a riot
I'm not in any camp. I know it doesn't seem that way to you since I have to spend so much time debunking ridiculous claims made about Edwards.
I'm making the assumption that Obama is more progressive than Clinton, and the block of Edwards delegates at the Denver Convention show up on his balance sheet in the end.
Those of you that want to argue that Clinton is the progressive in the race, have at it. You're a bowl of laughs today anyway.
Can't argue with a statement that has no basis in fact to support it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
can't argue with someone who doesn't know how to analyse the numbers, the county by county facts are pretty clear
Phil wrote "Those of you that want to argue that Clinton is the progressive in the race, have at it. You're a bowl of laughs today anyway."
Ho ho. I'd like to hear that argument, too. I particularly enjoy the one that supporters of the progressive populist campaign of John Edwards are helping deny Clinton a victory because they'd flock to her campaign if Edwards withdrew.
can't argue with someone who doesn't know how to analyse the numbers
Which you certainly didn't do or even provide a link to.
You need to learn that you aren't really a political maven who can throw out unsupported statements and expect them to be accepted at face value.
All I ask is the you provide the info to back yourself up when you make claims about numbers.
I particularly enjoy the one that supporters of the progressive populist campaign of John Edwards are helping deny Clinton a victory because they'd flock to her campaign if Edwards withdrew.
Just another unsupported claim.
Monica,
Many thanks for the work you are doing in the recount and also for this magnificent blog. I found it very interesting -- not just the counting procedures similar to those in North Central Florida, but the the history and use of the school and hospital there.
Those of you that want to argue that Clinton is the progressive in the race, have at it. You're a bowl of laughs today anyway.
Haven't seen many if any like that around here. If they are here, they keep it quiet.
I'll use 92 as the example.
Would Bill Clinton have won in a head to head with Bush I ? maybe, but it was easier with Perot in the race
but in a head to head with two strong campaigns 48-52 is a blowout
the difference?
to get the nomination you needs a majority of the delegates not a plurality
you can believe the Clinton campaign would like their chances better with Edwards out of the race
All I ask is the you provide the info to back yourself up when you make claims about numbers.
~~~~~~~~~~
Denise and Reed both gave the links sitka, do your own work, although I realize clicking is a hard concept for some people
Would Bill Clinton have won in a head to head with Bush I ? maybe, but it was easier with Perot in the race
That's conventional wisdom -- which is always wrong.
Clinton was in third place until Perot dropped out (before returning later) at which time he vaulted into first. Draw your own conclusion from it.
In 1992 Bush was VERY unpopular and my guess is that Clinton would have won without Perot.
-
By Jeff Morris on Jan 19, 2008 4:11 AMTo Monica, I too, 'don't trust Americas vote integrity system anymore, thanks in no part to Die Bold. I'm from NY, and am waiting for NH Patriots to tell me if the E-voting fraud occurred there again? We need to document this???Do you have any "Proof?" If so, please serd me a copy! You will not regret it! Keep writing Monica, your words reach more people than you may know.
Jeff Morris- Saugerties, N.Y.- DeJaVu57