Mystery: NY Results Say Obama Got Zero Votes In 80 Districts

Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

Read more here.

Comments

[in4success]

wait till ohio . . . you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[Nyland8]

??

8

[partyofone]

Ohio gave us George W. Bush in 2004. With Florida, it has the most corrupt state elections in the nation. The citizens of OH, like the citizens of FL, should lose their national votes until they clean up election fraud in their state

[scandals&skeletons]

partyofone, aint gonna change here in my sunny state of fl. there is a third world mentality that is pervasive in south fl.
fixing elections is just politics as usual in my state.
:-(

[JonathanDS2U]

Anyone who has really been paying attention to what's been learned about these machines didn't just start feeling outrage as of this incident. But if this is what it takes to begin the first deafening public outcry, let's do it.

[waynesmyer]

Gee! Golly! Whiz! Look's like the Grand Old Perverts (GOP) are not the only ones that can fix the vote machines! Or was it just a coincidence!Like it was in Ohio? Yeah! Sure it was!
Damn! Was that what "Two For the price of one" means? VOTE DIABOLD FOR A REALLY GOOD FIX!

[MPeter]

No surprise here. This is what old fashioned so-called African American leaders have been doing to AA votes. They cut deals with the Clintons and promise to deliver the vote by either suppressing those who disagree or simply destroying those ballots. Charlie Rangel made this deal with HRC long before he knew where his constituents stood on Obama. So what did he do? He teamed up with other Clinton hacks to steal the votes. It is a shame because even his wife and Moyinhan's widow whose Senate seat Hillary occupies has rejeced her!!!

[Dendroica]

Bullshit.

This wasn't an act of suppression, but of bad voting machines. To answer the person above you, not a single vote was cast on a Diebold machine in NYC, it is one of the few places that didn't convert because they thought that the bad nearly 50-year old mechanical voting machines was still better than the new electronic machines. As is clear, there are also machines that gave Hillary 0 votes. I voted in this primary, in a evenly split neighborhood and there was no suppression.

People know shit around here- there HAS been active voter suppression in this neighborhood; the cops have been called out a few times when supporters of Republican machine politician Nick Spano had his goons out blocking the gates. They had our polling place moved three times in four elections! This is the first time in 3 years where I've cast my ballot twice in a row in the same building.

[gun]

I love this post:

Ya know..... We should just say "f*ck it".

Skip the primaries and election.

Let's just have a civil war.

Losers pay off the national debt.

except for one small detail:

that's what we did to Germany after World War 1, and we got Hitler.

Wars: good for nothing

[frappe]

Damn it, let's get back to the paper ballot for Christ's sake. Why are we still having to deal with this nonsense?! Eliminate doubt once and for all. Dump the electronics! The sanctity of the election process takes absolute precedence! I don't trust the paperless machines. They are too much of a temptation to those who wish to gain or retain power. Far too much.

[Dendroica]

For the last time, this wasn't electronic, but mechanical!

[scandals&skeletons]

was it electronic or mechanical?

[partyofone]

The lever voting machines in NYC do produce a "paper" ballot. This cannot be explained by machine malfunction in 80 precincts. There is more to this than faulty machines.

[shinybear]

This had nothing to do with the lever machines but the people reporting the results.

There ARE real results and they are what are being compared to what was reported.

[Seafarer61]

All the nitwits commenting here without reading the entire story are proof positive why blogs such as this and others have contributed to the dumbing down of the American citizen.
And while the headline isn't inaccurate, it fails to mention Clinton also had voting anamolies as well.

Sometimes, it truly is sad to see how easily people are led by their own prejudice. No wonder conspiracy theorists play with you like a cat to a mouse.

[johnqeniac]

...thank you for the impartial analysis from the Clinton camp.

[daveny]

Err.. yeah. Literally a couple of precincts, as opposed to over 100 against Obama.

not that I'm normally prone to conspiracy theories, but in general, if you're going to do widespread election fraud, it's good to throw a couple the other way to make it look like a random "accident"

[useyourbrain]

If someone wanted to steal votes, they wouldn't do the obvious -- zero votes for one candidate. They would take votes from than candidate in smaller amounts.

One thing we don't know is the number of people who voted vs. the totals. These are unofficial tallies that have already been updated and show Obama votes.

The MSM has it in for HRC, even the Times. They are getting like the internet -- headlines without vetting their facts.

[Shannon2008]

The report suggested that there were only a handful, meaning five, of districts that underreported the Clinton vote whereas there were 80 districts that reported 0 votes for Obama in districts that tended to lean in his favor. It's even more interesting that, in many cases, the final vote tallies still have her leading by a margin of 2 to 1.

[kurttrail]

"The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote . . . . and The Times’s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Mrs. Clinton received zero votes in the initial results."

Hmmm! 80 is much greater than a mere handful, which would be more like 5.

That would be a ratio of about 16 to 1, at best.

Reading doesn't do one any good, if one doesn't comprehend what one reads.

While this doesn't prove any fraud, it does show that Obama got screwed disproportionally more than Hillary.

Now imagine the same scenario, but it happened in Chicago, and it was Hillary that was screwed much, much more, can't you just hear Bill, Hillary, & the rest of the Clintonistas wailing & whining about it?

[Sisyphuss]

No one got screwed. These were unofficial initial tallies reported -- not the official results.

[frappe]

It doesn't diminish the fact that we are still having to deal with "paperless errors of the electronic kind" years after problems surfaced. This is unacceptable. I don't need to tell you that a democracy only works so long as people trust the process and that each and every vote is counted accurately.

The fact of the matter is that "these" electronic machines, minus a paper trail or receipt, are untrustworthy. They only serve to create suspicion, especially in those instances where exit polls clearly indicated or predicted opposite or contrary results.

I'm fed up with them. I don't trust them. Bring back the paper ballot. So we'll have to wait a few more hours for the results. That's far better than never being sure if the results are accurate.

[nachtengel]

This is so incredible that this sort of corruption is still happening in 2008, in these United States.

I know very few, in my district, in Brooklyn, who voted for Hillary (she hasn't done a thing here, for anyone in the state to notice). The only people voting for her here, as far as I have seen/heard, are females who sympathize with her in some way for being female. I've heard the latino community is supposedly in to her, but again only females are actually voting for her even in the demo.

Also the school where I went to vote had little or no actual registered voters (though there were many there, who where told "you aren't in the book", which is madness). I would say in the 15 minutes I was there, everyone in my district who came in, where not on the books, even though most of us should have been.

[shinybear]

I work in NYC and only know one person who voted Clinton.

Everyone else I know wanted Obama or McCain.

[jhb90277]

So both candidates received 0 votes in certain precincts? Hard to believe. Is there some sort of grand conspiracy?

Or is it just possible that the voting machines are all screwed up and can't really be trusted?

The same folks who made the ATMs that spit out money and accurate receipts can't seem to make a voting machine that actually works accurately.

Nah, I don't blame any candidate for this crap. Blame Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, etc. All the games they play make me sick. The machines are not just vulnerable, they frequently don't work.

Check out http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

I'd like to have confidence in the results of our elections. There's a lot on the line. I'm sorry to say that my confidence has been shaken for quite some time.

[daveny]

Umm... nice diatribe, but clearly you don't know squat about voting in New York. I'm not even sure the companies that made our machines back in the Eisenhower era are even in business anymore... let alone "playing games!"

[John]

See my post above regarding the accuracy of electronic voting machines. If I have 1 cent left on my checking account after a purchase in Timbuktu, and I try to withdrawal cash on it 10 minutes later using a Diebold ATM machine, I won't be able to. How is this possible, at the same time that we can't have accurate vote tallying?

[jhb90277]

No, dave, I clearly know nothing about voting in New York, since I live in California. There are 49 other states besides yours. Do you know "squat" about what it's like to vote in them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA, Pub.L. 107-252) is a United States federal law passed the House 357-48 and 92-2 in the Senate[1] and was signed into law by President Bush on October 29, 2002.[2] Drafted (at least in part) in reaction to the controversy surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, the goals of HAVA are:[3]

replace punch card voting systems;
create the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections; and
establish minimum election administration standards
Almost two million ballots were disqualified in the 2000 election because they registered multiple votes or none when run through vote-counting machines.[4]

HAVA mandates that all states and localities upgrade many aspects of their election procedures, including their voting machines, registration processes and poll worker training. The specifics of implementation have been left up to each state, which allows for varying interpretations of the Federal law.

====================
Different counties within the same state may use different systems. HAVA doesn't mandate what system to use. Your district might not have upgraded, but folks a few counties over might have. The games played involve testing and certification of voting systems. The mfrs often don't make a system available for testing until it's too late and it *must* be put in place or the election can't proceed, security and vulnerability be damned.

There's a big country between your coast and mine, plus a couple of states often forgotten. $3.9B from the feds to the states to buy electronic voting machines is a nice windfall for the mfrs, all of whom thank Bushco for this bounty. In return, Americans get buggy voting machines that can be easily manipulated, often don't boot up at all and a whole host of other problems. For nearly $4B, Americans get to have their democracy eroded.

[Shannon2008]

I totally agree.

[speakingtruth2power]

It is very nearly frog soup and most of you

vegetables have no clue that you are in it.

[DietrichMoody]

There are still many votes to be counted in California, 870,000 I believe, and not all are absentee. She is ahead in California by only 400,000 (9.3%). The gap will close in California. Not to mention thousands of votes, in Los Angeles, CA, that are not being counted, according to the news.

There are a lot of votes coming in that are going to show the true nature of her wins. That's why she needed to put this away by February 5 and sweep these questionable voting mechanisms under the rug. That's why she's playing the fighter now - taking the focus of these votes.

[ColoradoDan]

Just how evil and manipulative are the Clintons? Anyone's who's read up their past knows these two are on a level with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush.

Nothing would suprise most of us regarding Hillary at this point. Her Ego is at risk ... she will not go without pulling every cheap and dirty trick in the book. Nothing one gets in her way - especially integrity and honesty.

Enough of the shrillness, Hillary ... say good night.

[GeoLee]

Colorado Dan just showed me he did not read the entire article or check the source by this response. :-(

[Querent]

Only Repigs say stuff like this. They just want to spread the blame for their incompetence, corruption, and lunacy around. Therefore, is "on a level with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush". Wrong action, sonny.

[CharlesMac]

Ya know..... We should just say "f*ck it".

Skip the primaries and election.

Let's just have a civil war.

Losers pay off the national debt.

[Stretchumall]

I like the way you think!

Got Rope?

[angelbravo]

Ok Chuck but, you got to promise you'll lose.

[patriotscholar]

In 2004, my wife and I lived in Florida. Although I was registered as a republican at that time, I voted for John Kerry in the general election, as did a lot of other people I knew.
Lo and behold, about 4 moths after the election, they released the precinct totals statewide and the republicans were crowing about how they did, bragging that in some precincts, all registered republicans voted for Bush. Mine was one of them. I don't think so...there was a fox loose in the hen houses that day.
I sincerely hope that is not the case in NY, because that would indicate a lot of lawbreakers running loose.

[TLV]

The interesting thing is, even when Jeb Bush and the people at Diebold SAID they would hand Bush wins both in 2000 and 2004, we didn't believe it. What was wrong with us? They were admitting they would do anything to guarantee it, for God's sake! What a nation of idiots we Is re!!!

So - what are we ignoring right now? Sibel Edmonds who is telling us that the Bush administration engaged in heroin trafficking and the sale of nuclear technology? YES!

Halliburton is ripping off the treasury big time? YES!!!!

Bush is a total idiot? YES!!!!!!

The falling off of Republican candidates to allow the Manchurian candidate, McCain, to take the lead coming from way behind? YESSSSS!!!!!!!! Is that a brain implant in your jaw, McCain, or are you just gritting your teeth at the joy of seeing me?

Is anyone paying attention to these blatant in-your-face occurances?

[speakingtruth2power]

Hey, I've been saying all along that continuing the BCBCB thing would lead US into the Norte American Fascist Union but all I get is comments like constipated tin foil user.

Most of the frogs in this here pot are very adamant that about the water temperature not having risen above room temperature. B&R and JohnCT are two of the most vocal frogs, saying the water is fine.

[GeoLee]

Well, if you had bothered to read more than the headlines and the two paragraphs posted by our very unbiased Arriana Huffington, you might have even learned that is some districts the vote was registered as 0 for Hillary, too. Jumping to conclusions without checking the sources can be revealing and I am getting a laugh tonight just checking how may people above and below failed to read the entire article which can be found on NYT on line. Suddenly all her opponents have focused immediately on voter fraud and theh clintons were behind the 0 votes...proved my point and I did not even set anyone up in doing so. I just decided to become informed bo not stopping at the headlines and synopsis becaue I have found them to frequently show bias.

[daveny]

So far the number of districts with errors against Clinton can be counted on ONE HAND.

The number of districts with errors against Obama? 80 where it was zero, and dozens more where the count was in error!

[keriheb]

This makes you wonder whether Hillary won New York State primary at all. New York City has a large black population and contrary to many peoples' thinking, they are not impressed by Slick Willie's sexual precocity.

Further the Latino community is not a monolithic community. Just like the English speaking community it has Europeans, African, Chinese, Indian and many other people who speak the language. Not only that, the Latino community in New York is not from the same cultural background as that in California. The Latino community in New York City is predominantly from the caribbean, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and Cuba. The Latino community in California and Texas is mainly from Mexico. Yes they speak the same language but culturally they are different. The Caribbean Latinio has Carib Indian in them as well as African and European blood mixed with a little Chinese. The Mexican Latino is descended from a different Indian tribe and European mixture. The music is different, the food is different the people are different culturally.

You could expect Obama to get more Latino votes in NYC than you would in California. The only way Hillary can expect to beat Obama is to cheat.

[angelbravo]

No but it might close the gap in Delegate counts

[Roshi98]

Hillary won New York fair and square. Didn't you even READ the link to the NYT article.

Also, you'll note that every place Hillary has a chance to talk directly to the voters, particularly those of latino or mexican descent, she wins huge majorities? That's because when given a chance, people see that Hillary represents real solutions and opportunity in her presidency while Barack just falls short.

That might change, of course. Apparently Barack suddenly decided just today to get all "wonky." Maybe he's discovered that his vast army of Obamaheads has reached it's limit. Now he actually has to convince real working folks that he has room for them, too. What a joke.

[Dendroica]

She won the state nearly 70/30 in her senate race.

I'd imagine she's popular...

[Mojane]

Here's a thought: Bill Clinton has an office in Harlem. Hillary represents NY State. They love Bill. Maybe Hillary just comes with the package. I know a lot of blacks who happen to admire Bill for his sexuality, and aren't that upset about his extramaritals. He's a powerful man and that's to be expected. If the head of a black church has affairs, no big deal. He's powerful and that just goes with the position. Same with black politicians, anyone in power, really. I'm not making a judgment. It's an observation. And I really don't care what they do outside their marriages. Do I love him for it?, admire him for it? No. Just is.

[Nommo]

I don't believe you know any Black people at all.

[indie17]

The vote still would not be zero. Ain't gonna happen. There's something amiss, as the NYT article pointed out -- probably poll workers that made errors with the ballot design.

[John]

It's true that a zero count for Obama, or Clinton, is not likely to ever happen. But I think the error is not with the poll workers. It with the vote tallying. That is where all the cheating takes place.

[Dendroica]

What ballot design?

These are machines! No ballots, levers.

[richardsgirl]

mojane: Here's another thought: As an African American, and one who is very offended by your post, how dare you make these blanket assumptions about a community that you obviously know nothing about. Your post is bereft of any credibility and is based solely on the racist stereotypes with which you view a community of people that you apparently think very little of. Many African Americans admired President Clinton because he, unlike previous presidents, with some exceptions, seemed to actually care about them; it had nothing to do with his "sexuality." This is why so many African Americans in particular were offended by his perceived insults. Finally, as a community, we hold our church leaders and politicians to the same value standards as any other American and in some instances, I believe that the African American community as a whole is much more conservative in their expectations of their church leaders and politicians than most. If your argument is meant to explain the zero votes that Senator Obama received in some districts in New York, it is probably the most offensive and shallow argument I have yet to hear/read. I think you should keep your thoughts to yourself.

[shinybear]

This is utter nonsense and beneath contempt. There are untold people in Harlem who voted Obama. They are already coming forward and they are rightfuly angry.

Blacks who admire Bill's sexuality?

Beneath contempt.

[kevenseven]

Do you know what I find really disgusting? That a politician would manipulate people in order to get them to like and admire him. What is this world coming to when a man like Obama can fool 20,000 people to show up to a venue and listen to him give a canned speech and cheer and cheer and be all excited and enthusiastic and get the stupid idea in their heads that they can make any difference and should have hope that tomorrow could be better?

What is happening when people make an emotional bond to a mere politician? Do these people not have brains in their heads? Are they on drugs?

You would think it was 1992 and Bill Clinton was running for president.

[martinchill]

he made you swoon back then, hey?

[indie17]

You seem cynical. Does your personal belief system not include the ability to be emotionally excited, to feel enthusiastic? Do you have a belief in the amazing abilites of mankind to overcome adversity?

[kevenseven]

You need to tune your irony meter.

[GeoLee]

Oh, how I hope you feel this way after Obama brings the troops home, ends the special tax breaks for the wealthy and then finds out that he is still going to have to call for tax increases from EVERYONE in order make good on his promises. I want to know that you are willing to put your money where your belief system is. Buffett and others know what a serious financial crisis we are in and I am sure by now they have told him, just repealing the "estate" taxes and ending the Iraq war is only the beginning. We all are truly going to have to tighten our belts, cut our credit cards, start saving and start paying for the services we want for everyone. I am willing to contribute to the proposals my candidate believes in. I only hope we don't get the NIMBY attitude when Obama wins from those who put him in office. You may believe it is cynical, but realism will take over for him on January 21, 2008 if he is setting in the famous shaped office. If I were him, I would bow my head and say "Oh God, how could it be this bad" I do believe Hillary or John would say the same thing. We may be setting up a good man for failure because of what has been left and because of the republican savvy of making many of the laws carry through until 2010 and 2011, thus lasting through most of his presidency. (One tax raise on the middle class and he is out) You better stop concentrating on Obama and start concentrating on the Representative and Senate races if you know anything about how government works. I am old enough and educated enough by my minors in poli sci and history and my 62 years of living and an avid life long interest in politics to know the proverbial #*%^ will hit the fan.

[scandals&skeletons]

keven7, i got it, i guess no one else could read the sarcasm.
lol

[shinybear]

How dare a candidate be likeable!

[ChiGuy]

Zero votes in 80 districts, huh?

It would seem some Hillary supporters have taken a page or two from the Republican playbook.

[kevenseven]

Chi, this sort of corruption is old school, 200 years, in any political party.