She Won the Vote. Deal.

I have spent all evening crunching poll numbers from New Hampshire, relying on data found on the Check the Votes site here and cross checking numbers with other posted reports. There are a few errors on the Check the Vote site (such as not having Acworth at all on the list, and overcounting total votes in Enfield), but forthe most part it looks accurate. [NOTE: To aswer the question of why I'm using Check the Votes, he has a break-down on hand counts v. scan counts. He does not break down by county.]

I'm too tired to go into detail tonight (I hope to pull together an analysis post tomorrow) but the only thing I can say is learn some god damned geography, you twits! A little sociology wouldn't hurt you, either.

Obama won hand counted and scan counted votes in his stronghold counties of Carroll, Cheshire, Grafton, Merrimack, and Sullivan. In those last two counties, his margin of victory was between 2 and 3 percent, even though 75% of the votes were scan counted in Merrimack and 81% were hand counted in Sullivan. In short, there was the same margin for both types of vote counting methods. This kind of throws a spanner in the works with the claim that the scan counters were tampered with or rigged in some way. In Grafton county, where almost 50% of the votes were scan counted, almost 14% more of the votes went to Obama. Yeah, that really sounds like the fix was on. In Carroll and Cheshire couties, 55% and 51% of votes respectively were scan counted and he won by more than 5% in both counties.

Meanwhile, in Belnap county, with 97% scan counting, HRC eked out a bare 0.34% victory margin. In Coos county, with only 52% scan counting, her margin was over 13%. In the remaining three counties, Hillsborough, Rockingham and Strafford, she has margins of 7%, 7+% and 6+% respectively, with 88%, 95% and 88% scan couting. These were her stongholds, and she won consistently across them.

If you look into the actual numbers and see where the votes came from, you see a lot of wildly up and down figures. Scan count or hand count fluxuated greatly, but there was a constant: Hillary did best in cities and large urban areas. You know, where her core constituencies live? And where there are very large voting districts that do high speed optical scanning instead of the old punch cards so as to increase the accuracy of vote recording? Y'all remember that place called Florida, don't you?

• Cities with 2000 or more votes cast went 40+% for HRC. The only city of that size who did a hand count gave Hillary 42+% of their votes. Together, they gave her 7742 more votes than Barry.
• Cities with less than 2000 but at least 1000 votes cast went 38+% for Hillary. They gave her 1291 more votes than Obama.
• Towns under 1000 but larger than 500 went for Obama 37% to HRC's 36.4% - which meant Obama got 284 more votes out of 52,337 cast.
• Very small towns, with fewer than 500 people voting, clearly went for Obama, at 39+% vs. 33.74% for HRC, which garnered him an extra 1270 votes.

We're talking about sociology here, not defective vote counts. Obama clearly won his constituency in New Hampshire, while HRC just as decisively won hers. Hers was bigger.

No vote tampering. No racist votes. No lying to the pollsters. No dim-witted females being tricked into voting for another girl.

News flash - the only poll that counts is the polling booth. Hillary won her well established constituency's votes fair and square.

Anglachel