well said! thanks for pointing that out...score one for rationality.

Kos's post made me laugh when I read it.  The NH stuff truly was ridiculous, as are statements by Obama supporters that they won't support Hillary if she wins the nomination.  

I don't personally have much enthusiasm for a HRC presidency, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be 10,000 times better than the current administration.  It's useful to be reminded of that from time to time, irrespective of who you support.  

I am completely open to the possibility of shenanigans with electronic voting machines, but there's just so much crying wolf that it's become impossible to take those claims seriously any longer.

IU am so sick of this: "when it comes to slamming the Clintons, any right wing conspiracy theorist will do!". Why do we spread the right wing talking smears? It is so sad.

What is next, quoting faux news and o'liely?

Progressive Blue

I agree with the crux of the diary, but, Todd, the evidence you advance here shows that there IS a major difference in how these things are handled by the supporters, so I don't quite get this:

"I wish partisans on both sides would get some sense of proportion as to who our real fight is with."

After all, you posted this:

As kos points out, SC used ES&S touch screen voting machines too. But nary a whisper about voter fraud. Hmm, why ever could that be?

Is there any doubt that if the results were reversed, and if Hillary had outperformed the polls by 12 points, that people would once again be crying about fraud, demanding recounts in the Palmetto State, and concocting all manners of fantastical theories to rationalize their skepticism? Apparently, since Clinton didn't win South Carolina, the voting machines worked perfectly.

Amazing how that happened.

You provide convincing evidence that the irrational partisanship comes from ONE side here.  

After Iowa:  "Congrats, Obama."  

After NH:  "She cried her way to a win. DIEBOLD FRAUD.  Dinkins/Bradley effect - racism."

After NV:  "Precinct bullying, Hispanics showed their racism."

After SC:  "Congrats Obama."

There is a huge difference between the way the differing camps are handling defeats, and you make that case in this quote very well:

Is there any doubt that if the results were reversed, and if Hillary had outperformed the polls by 12 points, that people would once again be crying about fraud, demanding recounts in the Palmetto State, and concocting all manners of fantastical theories to rationalize their skepticism?

I used to think that this site was a great source for informative, non-hysterical, relatively unbiased news stories regarding election coverage.  What happened to you guys?  

I'm an Obama supporter who never bought into any of the crazy claims some were making about NH (fraud, machine error, Bradley effect). I'd also note the those claims never came out of the campaign, just from some tin foil hat types on the blogs and from some out of control unauthorized campaign surrogates.

However, I'd suggest two reasons why there wasn't the same kind of reaction to SC there was in NH.

First, in  SC the pre-election polls got the winner right (although the margin was way off). In NH, the polls were predicting a victory for one candidate, and the other one won. I guess people are more satisfied when the polls predict the winner correctly, and care less whether they got the number right.

Second, I think some (conspiratorial type) people looked less at the pre-election swings and more at what they claimed (inaccurately) were differences between exit polls and actual results. That difference, while easily explained by problems with exit poll methodology, failing to account for absentees/advance voting, improperly weighted turnout models, etc, is what set the conspiracists' tongues wagging.

Face, polling is an imprecise art, not an exact science - especially in a year like this when the ground seems to be shifting around the campaigns every five minutes. I love looking at polls and trying to guess what they really mean, but in the end, getting the actual votes counted is most important.

I'd also remember that there is still very real reason to be working to ensure the integrity of the voting process. There are real risks of fraud and error without paper trails and auditable recounts. That is the unfortunate background that gives the conspiracy folks an audience for their fears.

I strongly disagree with the attitude both you and Kos display on this issue.  While I personally did not suspect there was fraud in New Hampshire once I learned there was a paper trail, I do not blame those who were suspicious of the results given that the local "machine" backing Clinton also controlled the voting apparatus.  In any event, what's wrong with a recount?  I strongly believe that the laws should be changed to require a backup paper trail and random audits.  If the Clintons want an audit in South Carolina, I have absolutely no problem with that.

Todd,

I think Kos is barking up the wrong tree with that post.  Bear in mind that in New Hampshire, the polls got the WINNER wrong.  In South Carolina, they got the winner right, but underestimated his margin of victory.  

I think there are a couple of factors that might help explain why some people suspected fraud in NH.  First, Obama had just won a convincing victory in Iowa, leading to widespread expectations that he would do well in NH also.  Nearly every poll predicted he would dominate in NH.  When the actual results varied dramatically from the polls, it's not surprising that some people would get suspicious, given the electoral shenanigans that we have witnessed in places like Ohio and Florida.  My own thought at the time was that IF there were some sort of fraudulent machinations, it was not because the Clintons were in cahoots with the voting machine manufacturers, but rather, that the Republicans would rather face Hilary in the general election and thus they rigged the machines to produce a Clinton win.

In South Carolina, Obama was expected to win big, and he did.  Thus, there is little reason for people to cry Fraud!

Kos likes to lecture people from his ivory tower once in awhile (note that he refers in that post to some of his own readers as 'morons.'  I think he's way off base this time.

For a handy reference point, I checked the Election Reform forum on DU. Always a hangout for the fraud crew, and its daily harangue for hand counted paper ballots only.

As I type this, the thread at bottom of page 1 had its most recent post on January 19. That's a full week prior to the South Carolina primary.

Do you have any idea how that compares to the paranoid nonsense after New Hampshire? I never consider fraud, other than pre-election suppression. But a couple of days after New Hampshire it dawned on me that the pro-Hillary tilt of actual result to poll consensus probably inspired some outrage on the Election Reforum forum of DU. Now, I don't visit that forum often anymore, once the fraud crew turned to daily insults and threats of ignore, trying to run off excellent posters like Mark Lindeman and Elizabeth Liddle. But I've been there enough to know it's slow, a handful of threads a day, a slow drift off the bottom of page 1.

Yeah, right. When I checked after New Hampshire that forum was almost as active as the popular DU Lounge. The entire front page had "most recent post" dates on the same day. So the conspiracy minded can feign balance, but the posting facts scream otherwise. There is not a single thread in that forum that even threatens the type of fury, or length, or level of so-called scrutiny that greeted the New Hampshire result.

Forums like that have admirable possibilities. But too many of the regular posters damn their own supposed cause by completely tilting the approach, based not on possibility/evidence of fraud, but whether the result was favorable. And I can't think of a more pathetic reality, in any forum of any website I've ever posted on.

Kos has the right idea in discouraging/limiting the election fraud speculation on his site.

This is a serious allegation. There better be solid evidence at least suggesting the potential for voter fraud before you make it, especially against a Democrat by a fellow Democrat.

The usage of EV, and the gap between in polls and SC results does not constitute such evidence. Especially when obvious trends and other factors more readily explain what happened. I bet the negative media attention to Bill Clinton, and the tendency for AA voters to tell pollsters they were undecided (in order to appear open-minded) when they actually were pro-Obama, had just a little tiny something to do with it.

Throwing around such heavy charges so lightly shows a considerable lack of judgment on your part. It makes you out to be either a pro-Clinton hack, or a lightweight. Either way, it diminishes the value of MyDD.

I expect better from you, Todd. You're better than that.

I also think you grossly mischaracterise the reaction most people had when the ugly notion of voter fraud was raised in New Hampshire. Aside from the lunatic conspiracy theorists, most people rationally examined the charges and evidence, and came to the right conclusion. No fraud.

We paid attention because we saw that in NH there was a basis for suspecting the possiblity of voter fraud. There was a clear pro-Clinton discrepency in the paper ballots versus EV results.

Most subsequent analysis showed this to be the product of a spurious geographical corelation between areas of Clinton support and usage of EV, not voter fraud.

So we sighed with relief -- no one wants to see HRC go THAT far -- and went on with the election.

Obama supporters were wrong to jump to conclusions in that case, just as HRC supporters are wrong to throw mud now.

DISCLOSURE: I lean Obama, but barely. I've loved Hillary Clinton since my days in the Bill Clinton administration, and would gladly support her.

I feel like we're getting distracted from the big picture here.  People are pointing fingers and squawking about who voter frauded whom.  Why aren't we talking about the simple fact that these machines EXIST to allow the possibility of voter fraud?  

I think the talk of voter fraud in New Hampshire died down after that kos post that there were no paperless machines in the state.  Yes, South Carolina uses them, which is a problem whether or not they were exploited.  

Can we talk about getting rid of them in the future as opposed to the possibility that they were used in the past?

What people were talking about was the discrepancy between hand counted totals and Diebold scan totals ... if there's the same problem in SC (is there?) I would want to recount those too.

The fact that you and Kos and all the other sites fail to mention this speaks volumes - kind of like the elephant in the room, dontcha think?

Just sayin...

It cannot be stressed enough just how stupid this discussion is.

I for one won't be doing things to help Hillary win the general. I'll vote for her, but that's it.

Instead I'll volunteer for my local races, senate house, governor, AG, and so own down the ticket to battle the GOP on the down-ticket levels.

Because if HRC is the nominee they'll sure as hell need it.

obama got unlikely voters to show up, and handily took the undecideds.  quit yer bitchin.

oh poor HRC, the MSM picks on her when she says shit that isnt true.

should i call a waaaaaaaaaambluance? dial 9-wa-wa?

you know what im playing right now? the worlds smallest violin. just for you.

Amen.  Lead coat-tails.

I am a life long Democrat and I will NOT vote for Hillary or Bill Clinton

Be careful Todd, they might call you racist too. Anytime someone raises a valid argument against Obama - they attack you personally.

You have been warned :-)