80 districts and not one vote for Obama? That's suspicious no matter where those votes were cast. Welcome to being anal probed by the FEC.

Why is this not on Page 1?

Bill Clinton's HQ is *where*, exactly?

See, this is what happens when you hire idiots to do your dirty work. It becomes eye-bleedingly obvious what happened.

If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.

From the article:
The history of New York elections has been punctuated by episodes of confusion, incompetence and even occasional corruption.

From the city that brought us Tammany Hall? Occasional honesty would be more accurate.

DarthBrooks: Bill Clinton's HQ is *where*, exactly?

Harlem, yeah that little coincidence hasn't escaped me either.

Snarfangel: Occasional honesty would be more accurate.

That made me laugh. And you should add the Tweed Ring, who used Tammany Hall.

This article is obviously a pack of lies. It implies that someone tampered with the election. I refuse to believe that the Clintons could stoop so low. They'd never do anything dishonest.

Deadfeznt: Why is this not on Page 1?

Because the NYT has endorsed Hillary, and they'll be damned if they give that piker Obama any good coverage. Even if it's important news.

It's just another facet of this vast, right-wing conspiracy...

I find it hard to believe that anyone tampering with the election would be stupid enough to toss out all of the votes for Obama unless they wanted to draw attention to the tampering and impossible to believe that Obama didn't receive a large number of votes. I would love to propose a conspiracy, but some computer error in tallying ballots sounds more likely.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.... not that I want to give props to the Republicans but you only put in the "Fix" in close election.... like Florida and Ohio.

Must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy to keep the black man down

But there were 1,784 votes for Osama.

Scrophulous Barking Duck: I find it hard to believe that anyone tampering with the election would be stupid enough to toss out all of the votes for Obama unless they wanted to draw attention to the tampering and impossible to believe that Obama didn't receive a large number of votes. I would love to propose a conspiracy, but some computer error in tallying ballots sounds more likely.

You know it seems like people in conspiracies would be trying the "this is too incompetant to be a conspiracy" after it worked so well in debunking 9/11 truthers. Even if the people were totally nuts you have to admit pointing out how stupid someone would have to be for some of the stuff to have been planted finished up the arguement definatively. So now what do people do when they want to fool somebody? Over the top fail. We're used to giving these people too much credit, so if it's too obvious, they couldn't have done it.

It's the perfect plan!!

/Engages tin foil hat just in case
//Remember, these people are voting for Hillary
///They aren't smart enough to disenfranchise voters stealthily

but..but..Bush!

/Wow! Everything bad you have ever heard about the Clintons is true.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.
tsk tsk

Those god damned republicans cheating in an election again...wait

Oh, never mind

Snarfangel: From the city that brought us Tammany Hall? Occasional honesty would be more accurate.

"Occasional" is quite charitable of you, but a big juicy THIS nonetheless.

Scrophulous Barking Duck: I find it hard to believe that anyone tampering with the election would be stupid enough to toss out all of the votes for Obama unless they wanted to draw attention to the tampering and impossible to believe that Obama didn't receive a large number of votes. I would love to propose a conspiracy, but some computer error in tallying ballots sounds more likely.

That's exactly what they want you to think!!

/tightens tinfoil hat

I hope their state senators and officials gets down to the bottom of this. Oh wait....

Deadfeznt: Why is this not on Page 1?

You must be new here. Anti-Democratic postings seldom make it anywhere. If this was a Republican primary, it would be posted 6 times in 3 days on the front page.

hillbillypharmacist: Deadfeznt: Why is this not on Page 1?

Because the NYT has endorsed Hillary, and they'll be damned if they give that piker Obama any good coverage. Even if it's important news.

The story is just under the lead on their website.

Darius Harris: If you're black, you should vote democrat in the general election because you need help and democrats help you.

In these primaries, you should vote for Obama because Obama's black, like you.

What, exactly, is the point of this comment? Other than proclaiming that you are a racist dick, of course.

FYI: NY's 70th is represented by Keith Wright, one of the Assembly's more notorious hacks (which is saying something). In the tank for Hillary, which I'm sure is a coincidence.

The Democrats have been holding the black community (as a whole) down with self-defeating policies and baby-sitting.

Democrat leaders such as Sharpton and Jackson don't want equality or a colorblind society. That would end their meal ticket.

Obama was never part of their race-driven blackmailing. I'm not wild over some of his policies but he seems like a genuine person. That may be enough anymore as we no expect our politicians to be even remotely decent.

Lando Lincoln: Darius Harris: If you're black, you should vote democrat in the general election because you need help and democrats help you.

In these primaries, you should vote for Obama because Obama's black, like you.

What, exactly, is the point of this comment? Other than proclaiming that you are a racist dick, of course.

Sometimes the simplest reasons are the best ones. Speaking of simple...

Digeratus: See, this is what happens when you hire idiots to do your dirty work. It becomes eye-bleedingly obvious what happened.

If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.

Bart: Well Dad, here's my report card. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Homer: A+!? You don't think much of me do you, boy?
Bart: No, sir.
Homer: You know a D turns into a B so easily. You just got greedy.

---

If Hillary's 35 years of experience didn't cover properly delegating dirty work, what good is she?

The media cannot bring themselves to make the Democratic Party look bad unless they have to. That is why they often forget the (D) after a crooked Senator from the Left but on the Right will say

"Republican Senator X (R) of the REPUBLICAN PARTY"

Love the massive understatement-ed-ness of the headline and the first quoted paragraph: 'significantly underreports' and that 'blacks are heavily represented' in Harlem.

My my, the Daily Kos is certainly mellow when it comes to Democratic Party shenanigans, isn't it?

The media cannot bring themselves to make the Democratic Party look bad unless they have to. That is why they often forget the (D) after a crooked Senator from the Left but on the Right will say

"Republican Senator X (R) of the REPUBLICAN PARTY"


Exacly! For example, Fox News felt compelled to add the (D) after Mark Foley's name everytime they ran a spot on him.

Scrophulous Barking Duck: I find it hard to believe that anyone tampering with the election would be stupid enough to toss out all of the votes for Obama unless they wanted to draw attention to the tampering and impossible to believe that Obama didn't receive a large number of votes. I would love to propose a conspiracy, but some computer error in tallying ballots sounds more likely.

Simple arrays in computer programming are pretty hard to fark up, let alone lose it's information. Hillary's minions deleted that data. There is a remote chance of that happening in one district, but not 80. Tell this to any programmer and %100 will cry foul.

/GOBAMA!

Digeratus: See, this is what happens when you hire idiots to do your dirty work. It becomes eye-bleedingly obvious what happened.

If you want somethingelectioneering done right, you gotta do it yourselfhire republicans.

Lord_Baull: The media cannot bring themselves to make the Democratic Party look bad unless they have to. That is why they often forget the (D) after a crooked Senator from the Left but on the Right will say

"Republican Senator X (R) of the REPUBLICAN PARTY"


Exacly! For example, Fox News felt compelled to add the (D) after Mark Foley's name everytime they ran a spot on him.

And...

Who says this is advantageous to any Dems at all? Wouldn't it benefit the GOP to screw up the Democratic nomination and ensure that they run the weaker candidate?

So, there are the follwing possibilities:

- It's a computer error
- They've been tampered with to show how easy tampering is
- They've been tampered with to benefit the Clinton camp
- They've been tampered with to benefit the GOP
- They've been tampered with in order to incriminate the other side

...in order of likelihood.

Wow. Not a single vote?

This is either completely wrong (factually) or man, fun.

This will drop out of sight and dissapear, just like the other stories.

Just when I believe I understand how deep the liberal idiocy goes on Fark, I come to this thread -- which is about clear, pure, blatant, 100-percent Democratic corruption that Republicans couldn't have been involved in, and yet some of you can't help but make Bush and Republican comments.

Just ... odd.

Nemo's Brother: The media cannot bring themselves to make the Democratic Party look bad unless they have to. That is why they often forget the (D) after a crooked Senator from the Left but on the Right will say

"Republican Senator X (R) of the REPUBLICAN PARTY"

Rodeodoc: You must be new here. Anti-Democratic postings seldom make it anywhere. If this was a Republican primary, it would be posted 6 times in 3 days on the front page.

The Whine^(TM) is strong with these two.

video man: Simple arrays in computer programming are pretty hard to fark up, let alone lose it's information. Hillary's minions deleted that data. There is a remote chance of that happening in one district, but not 80. Tell this to any programmer and %100 will cry foul.

Sorry, I disagree. I can easily imagine an error that would do this. Lets us imagine two programs

10 let $cl= 0
20 let $ob = 0
30 get vote
40 if vote = obama then $ob = $ob+1
50 if vote = clinton then $cl = $cl+1
60 clear vote
70 goto 30

and the second

10 let $cl= 0
20 get vote
30 if vote = obama then $ob = $ob+1
40 if vote = clinton then $cl = $cl+1
50 let $ob = 0
60 clear vote
70 goto 20


Set your variables to zero first, then go get a vote. Set the variable for the candidate that got the vote to one higher, discard that vote then get another vote. If you clear the variable within the counting loop then every time you count the variable gets cleared, then at the end of the loop the vote gets marked as counted. The above is drastically simplified but I think you get the idea.

RTFA. The machines in question are MECHANICAL not electronic. The numbers are on those little wheels which sometimes end up halfway between two digits. The poll workers are tired after very long days and rushed to get the numbers out. The figures are being corrected and Obama may pick up a delegate or two.

Also there were a few districts where the same error happened in Obama's favor. As yet there's no explanation why it seems to have gone disproportionately in one direction, but if it WERE a particularly braindead sort of conspiracy, they wouldn't have taken votes away from Clinton too, now, would they?

Lando Lincoln: Darius Harris: If you're black, you should vote democrat in the general election because you need help and democrats help you.

In these primaries, you should vote for Obama because Obama's black, like you.

What, exactly, is the point of this comment? Other than proclaiming that you are a racist dick, of course.

I don't know. I think he summed up what the media has been spoon-feeding the American public pretty well.

Sharing Artist's Boobies: RTFA. The machines in question are MECHANICAL not electronic.

Bah, don't go confusing this thread with facts.

I really like the political dynamics here. Republicans get their rocks off by bashing the Clintons, and since most Democrats would rather have Obama, they join in.

But then the Conservatives go too far and start up the racism engines against Obama, and the sides are split again. Very refreshing flamewars on Fark.

Running a-puck:
10 let $cl= 0
20 let $ob = 0
30 get vote
40 if vote = obama then $ob = $ob+1
50 if vote = clinton then $cl = $cl+1
60 clear vote
70 goto 30

and the second

10 let $cl= 0
20 let $ob = 0
30 get vote
40 if vote = obama then $ob = $ob+1
50 if vote = clinton then $cl = $cl+1
60 clear vote
70 goto 20


This is a more believable mistake.

JesusKnowsKungFu: I really like the political dynamics here. Republicans get their rocks off by bashing the Clintons, and since most Democrats would rather have Obama, they join in.

But then the Conservatives go too far and start up the racism engines against Obama, and the sides are split again. Very refreshing flamewars on Fark.

It's only racism if you're the white devil. Blacks voting for Obama because he's black is A-OK, but whites voting for Hillary because she's white is the white devil holding the minorities back.

Two way street.

If there was cheating, I'd bet dollars to navy beans the republicans are responsible. I can see where they would make it obvious to make it look like the Hillary fixed it.

They know that McCain has a much better chance against Hillary, and they have a history of fixing elections.

sarcastrophe: It's only racism if you're the white devil. Blacks voting for Obama because he's black is A-OK, but whites voting for Hillary because she's white is the white devil holding the minorities back.

Two way street.

Let me guess. You're trying to compete with Nemo's Brother and TheConvincingSavant for the title of "World's Dumbest Farker".

Murkanen: Let me guess. You're trying to compete with Nemo's Brother and TheConvincingSavant for the title of "World's Dumbest Farker".

Nope. I'm just pointing out an obvious contradiction. But if you think I'm wrong, you're certainly entitled to ignore the obvious.

Scrophulous Barking Duck: I find it hard to believe that anyone tampering with the election would be stupid enough to toss out all of the votes for Obama unless they wanted to draw attention to the tampering and impossible to believe that Obama didn't receive a large number of votes. I would love to propose a conspiracy, but some computer error in tallying ballots sounds more likely.but since the Clinton's are Democrats I'll just ignore it like nothing happened.

Fixed that for you.