Nader Recount On
 

Losing by 335,000 in N.H., Nader Demands a Recount

By Jonathan Finer and Brian Faler
Wednesday, November 10, 2004; Page A07

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who lost by about 335,000 votes in New Hampshire, has asked the state for a recount.

No, the longtime consumer advocate is not hoping to change last week's outcome in the Granite State, where Democrat John F. Kerry was the winner. Rather, he said, he is concerned about the veracity of the results.

"We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire," Nader wrote Secretary of State William M. Gardner. "These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5% to 15% over what was expected."

New Hampshire uses Diebold machines at 132 polling places. Gardner's office received Nader's fax at 4:59 p.m. Friday, one minute before the deadline. Under state law, if a candidate requesting a recount finished more than three percentage points behind, he must pay for the process. Gardner said that if the Nader campaign sends a check for $2,000 and promises to pay any additional charges, he will round up the ballots and initiate a hand count.

Spokesman Kevin Zeese said Nader was planning to send the check yesterday. "Either it will allay people's fears about the results, or it will open the door to looking at other states," Zeese said.

Ralph Nader will hold a press conference today at 1:00 pm to announce his New Hampshire recount.
I am hearing from reliable sources that citizens in Ohio will be requesting recounts there.
I am also hearing that Florida is going to be recounted and that some kind citizen is going to pay for it.
A private citizen has already requested a recount in Nevada.
A 527 has been created to accept donations for recounts in New Hampshire, Ohio and possibly Colorado and New Mexico. Those interested in donating can do so at www.helpamericarecount.org

Has there been any word from Soros? I emailed him but have heard nothing from anyone.

Soros has chosen acceptance, it seems :(. "Post-election comment" from his website:

Obviously, I am distressed at the outcome of the election. I hope, but don't trust, that the second Bush administration will have learned something from the mistakes of the first. What is at stake is our ability to recognize our own fallibility.

I established GeorgeSoros.com in order to engage in a critical discussion with readers about President Bush's policies, particularly in Iraq. To all those who sent in messages, thank you. I found the dialogue to be thought provoking, and I hope visitors to the site did as well. Georgesoros.com proved more popular than I initially imagined. There have been more than a million and a half visitors to the site and more than 30,000 people sent in messages.

Having established the site in the run up to the election, I frankly did not pause to consider what to do with it afterwards. Given the outcome, I now feel strongly that it should continue. Exactly what shape the future content will take, and how actively I will pursue the weblog, will take some time to figure out. In the meantime, I am traveling to Europe to attend to the business of my foundation - but I'll be back.

Please check back in a few weeks for updates. Thank you.

If he's given up, it's not a good sign. And the Kerry assholes are acting quite putrid as of late.

I think they are resigned to there are not enough votes being talked about here to make a difference. I am not saying that is the case though - but Kerry was armed with a flotilla of lawyers and some of the best statisticians and political minds - they all concluded drop it - that must count for something. I also think they may think for some reason it is political suicide to go down this road. AND - who knows the D's may not want to examine it too closely for fear of D culpability on the local level - I mean it probably exists on both sides :shrug:

Finally, maybe Kerry, being the true elder statesman that he is realizes another 2000 Florida would not be good for the nation and instead dropped it and left it to the Congress.

Who knows in the end. But, I do think if they can prove fraud they need to - and that is not matter who committed it. Moreover, if it is not fraud but just a mistake - that needs to be known as well so it does not happen again.

We shall see how this plays out.

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]... But, I do think if they can prove fraud they need to - and that is not matter who committed it. Moreover, if it is not fraud but just a mistake - that needs to be known as well so it does not happen again...QUOTE]

I agree with you here because if people get away with it, next time it will be WORSE. :mad:

I know. I can't believe they are seemingly dismissing all of this. I didn't begrudge him for conceding, one week ago. Now there's enough evidence to, at very least, warrant investigation (if not construct a case). There are Ph.D. statisticians, computer programmers, and political analysts all saying something is very wrong here. It's not just an internet(s) rumor, regardless of what Peter Jennings and the lapdog hacks at CNN would have you believe. I'm giving Kerry & his camp the benefit of the doubt, but only for so long. Where's the GELAC fund? The 17,000 lawyers? The "change strategy as information comes in" approach and the "every vote will count and be counted" attitude? Continue to do nothing, and don't count on my support in 2008.

Not to mention the fact tha the still has $51 million in his campaign funds to pay for recounts, compared to Bush's $14 million.

And Kerry's brother Cameron is saying that Kerry is considering running in '08. :rolleyes:

Ugh! He should throw us a big party! Seriously, there's the money for the recount, WTF?

They concluded to drop it before half the evidence even came in. If you take the composite of ALL the evidence for fraud, errors, glitches, negligence, manipulation... however the hell you want to label it, there's enough to argue that the outcome of the election could very well have been different. 92,000 more votes than registered voters in a single county in OH? 4,000 more votes (for Bush) than registered voters in another county? The 136,000 vote margin by which he lost the state (not including provisionals, which are likely to break for Kerry) suddenly looks a lot smaller.

Besides, this needs to be looked into by someone whether it was enough to flip the election or not. "Sorry, it looks like fraud occured but not enough for us to win, so who cares!" ? Um, no.

I concur, I thought it was ridiculous to drop it. :mad: Like, I wanna see those exact numbers, mkay?

I know, which is exactly why I said I doubt I'll support him again. Which sucks, 'cause I think the guy would have made an excellent President. Unless he does something now, he needn't bother worrying about 2008. A LOT of people will desert him, if they haven't already.

Nader, Bev Harris, Conyers, and millions of angry voters can only do so much. Unless the candidate himself protests, we'll all be swept under the carpet. "Never again can we permit those who have the power to make a difference to walk away from their responsibilities." - John Kerry, 1990. So where are you going, Senator? :distress:

Kerry, grow a pair!

:laugh: borrow Keith Olbermann's! Anything!