WingColors

interesting statistics, but what do you make of the exit polls that also had Clinton and McCain winning?

That is a pretty interesting find. I've long been leary of these vote counting machines, especially those made by Diebold and ES&S.

But, even though Clinton won a larger percentage of the votes, by a very small margin, she and Obama took the same number of delegates. So, this is not as big a win as it might appear.

Exit polling is crap... hell I lie to exit pollers to influence results why would you think they're accurate at all.

I told and exit poller in '04 I had voted for Kerry when I hadn't...

I generally flip off exit pollers. I know, rude, but it's none of their business and I don't like catering to media hysteria.

I am making the assumption that larger towns used machines and smaller towns hand counted votes.......All these stats are telling you is that Clinton took the larger towns and Obama took the smaller towns. Which is what the next table tell you: Small Towns: Obama 38.8%, Clinton 34.2%. Large Towns: Obama 35.9%, Clinton 40.2%.

I wouldn't assume, I've experienced the opposite. Just because they're small doesn't mean they ALWAYS use paper.

You COULD be right but without the data showing the precinct and ballot type you ARE left assuming which is always a dangerous game in politics.

More information on this that also goes into a county-by-county comparison in one instance.

Now you see why I will simply stop voting if I cannot have a paper trail.

We still vote by "scantron" style ballots here and we've turned down electronic voting several times. Unless I get a printed receipt with my votes on it, I WILL NOT vote on a machine.

Ok, pulling out of voting would be stupid but you bet your ass I'd fight non-paper trail machine voting TOOTH and NAIL.

The stats show exactly what towns used paper voting and what towns used machine voting. Yes I made a generalization but if you look most cities that were hand counted had less than 500 votes. There were a couple medium size cities such as New Boston (1300 voters), Claremont, and Franklin (1600) that used hand counting but that is as far as it goes. There also some smaller cities like Allenstown with 600 voters that used Diebold.

I was listening to something really interesting on NPR this morning. They were talking to people at various parties and outside of primaries and I heard this more than once:

Well, I was thinking, I like all the candidates, so why shouldn't I vote for Hillary? She's a woman, we've never had a woman president!

That scares me. I'm all for a woman president, but not because she's a woman. And how apathetic/uninformed do you have to be to "like all the candidates?!" They have opposing views and values even within the same party.

But a lot of the talk from people on that show was "vote for hillary, because why not?"

Ladies and gentlemen... THAT is how she WILL get elected.

The female vote and the "why the hell not" uninformed voter.

My state, New York, is the very last state in the country to have alternative voting machines from the ones that have had no significant problems since citizens started voting. I forgot which commision is actually holding up the process, but the reason presented to the public is that "we need a paper trail".

The primary process seemed to high-light a part of me that I don't like acknowledging often. I'm sexist. I would vote for Hillary because I would not be able to forgive myself in my lifetime if I did not vote for the first (potential) woman president. My vote is not because I totally agree with her on every issue, but because I respect her leadership style and experience. I also think the mother of a daughter can bring a realistic sensitivity to issues I care deeply about.

I'll be severely disappointed if she gets elected to the office. I don't care for most of her policy, or her swing to the right, and I think her ambition outweighs her desire to serve.

The state I vote in uses the Diebold touchscreens. They originally has significant software problems in 2004, when they first used them, so much so that elected officials in any given election wanted paper ballots used. The software problems were supposedly fixed.

In the last election three counties in this state had significant errors of the screen freezing type, though it was said that it did not affect voting.

I think her ambition outweighs her desire to serve.

I think this is very accurate, and applies to far more people than just her. Perhaps that's one of the main problems today. I'm all for people being paid for the value they produce, but I think there are far too many in politics seeking glory and fame rather than addressing the problems their constituents face.

I used a touchscreen machine in Florida in 2004, I assume it was a diebold. It was easy to use and seemed... rugged. Of course that doesn't at all translate into how accurate or reliable they are.

I used a touchscreen machine in Florida in 2004, I assume it was a diebold.

Actually, no Florida county uses Diebold. South Florida counties use Sequoia Voting Systems.

/I hate closed-source voting machines without printed receipts. I'll take a Scantron, thanks.

I think the ambiton of all of the candidates outweighs their desire to serve.

The state I vote in uses Diebold touchscreens. There was a problem with them last year in two or three counties, but it supposedly didn't affect the actual voting.

Hell, I'm still pissed that my state uses a closed primary system essentially denying my a vote on super Tuesday.

Cooper, you don't know how big a smile I got on my face when I saw your distaste for Hillary. THAT made my day. Now SPREAD THE LOVE and infect your friends with that :) PLEASE

You're a Republican, aren't you RightOn? Tactically speaking, you should want Clinton to win her primaries.

Why, tactically speaking, I DO NOT want Clinton to win primaries. If she gets the Nomination, out of the top three in the Democratic party... SHE would be the hardest to defeat come November.

Honestly, given the relatively weak selections on the Right this season, I don't see a way FOR the Republicans to win but it would be easier without Clinton in the runnings. That family is ruthless.

...and for the record, I'm a registered Independent with conservative leanings who believes strongly in restoring our government to its constitutional roots.

Yeah, I'm going to go with RightOn in this one: neither do I wish to see Clinton win the primaries. However, I don't believe she'd be the hardest to defeat. Instead I believe Obama would, in addition to being a better president.

Tactically speaking, I don't think the Republicans stand much of a chance, period, unless Ron Paul or Huckabee wins, and even then it's marginal. People are sick of Republican rule.

I always see this as a pendulum, which swings too far one way, then too far the other. Of course, even an airplane is off course 95% of the time, so I suppose that so long as the swings from one side to another average out to a good path it's not all that bad.

P.S.
I'm a registered Republican, however, the party has sickened me the past few years. I tend to lean conservative, but it seems that's more associated these days with a party than with an ideology.

Conservatism in the US is meaning more and more about being independent than it is being a Republican.

True Republicans are a rare breed these days.