Thursday, January 10, 2008

Rove, Obama and New Hampshire (Added note)

Karl Rove's Wall Street Journal column on the New Hampshire primary is getting some attention for its descriptions of Barack Obama. I'm more intrigued by his words on polling:
What would Shakespeare's Jack Cade say after the New Hampshire Democratic primary? Maybe the demagogue in "Henry VI" would call for the pollsters to be killed first, not the lawyers.
Rove misses the point of Shakespeare's play King Henry VI, Part II: Cade is meant to be seen as an asshole. He's a low-class rabble-rouser, the kind of guy who, in the 1990s, would have formed a militia.

So yeah, it kinda figures that Uncle Karl would call upon a Shakespearian demagogue as he tries to stir up populist fury against pollsters: When paper ballots cannot be counted, polls are the only gauge of electoral fairness.
Our media culture endows polls -- especially exit polls -- with scientific precision they simply don't have.
Odd. Exit polls weren't considered so bloody unreliable back in the pre-Diebold days. And they are still valued in Europe. When a guy with Rove's history disses exit polls, it's like Monsanto saying we don't need an Environmental Protection Agency.

Over on DU, Skinner has tabled all general discussion of possible vote fraud in New Hampshire. His decision is understandable: The debate had degenerated into ludicrous acrimony, with high-horsemen bounding onto ever taller nags.

But.

Skinner says that there isn't any evidence of fraud in NH. That statement bugs me. If -- as Chris Matthews has suggested -- an exit poll discrepancy does exist, then that fact, in and of itself, constitutes evidence.

When international election observers in other countries see an exit poll at notable variance from the actuals, they cry foul. (Scroll two posts down for documentation of this point.) Why should a different standard apply to America?

Added note: Karl has some interesting words about the folks who like Obama as opposed to the folks who like Clinton:
Put another way, Mrs. Clinton won the beer drinkers, Mr. Obama the white wine crowd.
BUT: The ballots were counted by hand in 20% of NH -- in rural areas. And those voters went for Obama. Clinton won in the citified Diebold areas.

Karl is saying that the hicks are the white wine swillers. Does that situation make sense to you?

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree with you more. That's what bugs me about this, too, and apart from Bob Koehler, no one else is talking about it yet in the media -- probably out of ear of getting nametagged a fanatic, conspiracy theorist, etc.

Anonymous said...

Joe, Kucinich has asked for the recount. I'm crossing my fingers for its veracity and thanking the good Congressman for his patriotism.

Joseph Cannon said...

Just saw the Kucinich thing. I was mad at him before, but when it comes to election integrity, he deserves high praise.

But will a recount do any good? Run the ballots through a "fixed" optical scan reader, and the same problem will repeat itself.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's the sixty-four-cent question, Joe.

Anonymous said...

The fact that Rove is commenting on this at all is distubing.

Antifascist said...

If I'm not mistaken, the optical scanner counts paper, not electronic, ballots. Couldn't the DK campaign demand a hand recount?

Joseph Cannon said...

Depends on the law in NH.

We've seen it happen before -- a "recount" occurs when the same ballots are run again through the same machines.

That's not a recount at all, of course, although the news media will play it that way.

Joseph Cannon said...

Okay, I looked it up. The laws governing the recount process in NH are here:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/660/660-2.htm
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/660/660-3.htm
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/660/660-4.htm
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/660/660-5.htm
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/660/660-6.htm

Here's the most relevant part:

660:5 Conduct of Recount. – If directed by the secretary of state, the state police shall collect all ballots requested from the town or city clerks having custody of them and shall deliver them to the public facility designated by the secretary of state. At the time and place so appointed, the ballots cast for such office shall be counted by the secretary of state and such assistants as the secretary of state may require. When counting the ballots, the secretary of state or his or her assistants shall visually inspect each ballot. No mechanical, optical, or electronic device shall be used for the counting of ballots. The candidates, their counsel, and assistants shall have the right to inspect the ballots and participate in the recount under such suitable rules as the secretary of state may adopt. If the candidate requesting the recount cannot attend the recount, the candidate shall designate, in writing, to the secretary of state the name of an individual who will attend the recount and who will be authorized to make decisions on the candidate's behalf. Each candidate or his or her counsel or designee shall have the right to protest the counting of or failure to count any ballot. The secretary of state shall thereupon rule on said ballot and shall attach thereto a memorandum stating such ruling and the name of the candidate making the protest. If, at any time during the counting of the ballots, a discrepancy appears in any ballot for any reason, the secretary of state shall suspend the recount until the discrepancy is resolved, at which time the secretary of state shall continue the recount. In no event shall a discrepancy result in a second recount for the same candidate, as provided in RSA 660:3.

And the key phrase is this:

"No mechanical, optical, or electronic device shall be used for the counting of ballots."

YES!

Anonymous said...

The comment from Anon 7:34 is interesting.

Just what is Rove doing out in public at all these days?

Anonymous said...

All the uncounted Ron Paul votes bother me... not so much because I support him but because they were not tallied. Mr. Paul has tremendous support in NH according to previous polls.

We never had poll issues until Bush, Rove , Diebold et al.

And does everyone know South Carolina uses ES&S machines. You should also know the brother of Diebold founded ES&S

Paper ballots and honest Americans are the best most fair and honest way to hold an election.

And lastly, the world is watching us.

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen any allegation of discrepancies of exit polling with the final results, but I have seen allegations that they matched up pretty closely.

As any sentient person paying attention knows, Chris Matthews is not a reliable reporter of any fact. He constantly misstates things. So, other than 'the Screamer,' has anyone with a shred of credibility made this claim?

...sofla

Joseph Cannon said...

Sof, that's why I said "If." If Obermann had said it, I might not have used the qualifier.

Anonymous said...

I understand, and I caught that disclaimer. Then I saw a link to bradblog, which worried me some, only to find that brad cites.... Chris Matthews.

Like a stopped clock, Matthews may be (accidentally?) right from time to time.

However, are exit polls massaged with weighting? If so, did they, as the Obama spokesman said their campaign failed, fail to 'weight' up female participation at 57% of the total electorate?

....sofla

Unknown said...

On the accuracy of exit polls:

Surely there are records of exit poll data for a zillion past elections-- someone should go back and look at their accuracy.

The statistics are likely to be something like "exit poll data for every election for which we have records prior to 2004 has always been at least 99.4% accurate." If an exhaustive study finds that result, we'll know exactly what we're dealing with here. If exit polls aren't that historically accurate, we should know that too.

I wouldn't know how to begin to undertake such a project -- dig up old newspapers?

Anyone looking for a Ph.D. thesis out there want to take this on?