Paul Joseph Watson
The media has gone into overdrive trying to whitewash Hillary Clinton’s inexplicable defeat of Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary and sideline questions about vote fraud, with the latest excuse being that Clinton’s name appeared above Obama’s on the ballot paper.
In reality, Clinton’s reversal of a 10-13 point pre-polling deficit to Obama is highly suspicious and smacks of vote fraud, especially considering the fact that the New York Senator gained a crucial 7% swing thanks to provably vulnerable Diebold electronic voting machines.
In addition, the head polling clerk of the town of Sutton was forced to admit that they completely failed to count 31 votes for Republican candidate Ron Paul, initially reporting his final tally as zero.
The only mention in the establishment press of potential vote fraud in relation to the Clinton/Obama discrepancy fraud came on CNN at around 5:06am the morning after the primary.
“All the pollsters are unlikely to have made the same mistake so what could have happened? Something must have happened,” remarks CNN’s political analyst Bill Schneider.
Hillary’s show of staged emotion is cited as a potential reason for the change, but at the time it happened almost all pundits were in uniform agreement that Clinton tearing up only harmed her chances because it made her appear weak. Some even likened it to the infamous Dean scream , which mothballed Howard Dean’s success in 2004.
Another excuse is that voters experienced a sudden bout of involuntary racism when they entered the polling booth and refused to vote for Obama, a black man. On the face of it this is patently absurd. New Hampshire isn’t South Carolina or Mississippi, it’s an urbane part of the country which includes a huge swathe of Independents – not normally noted for their racist sentiment. In addition, Obama swept Iowa which is packed full of evangelical phony Christians and other groups more closely associated with racist sentiment.
Schneider reluctantly moves on to the third and only plausible explanation – vote fraud.
But now the establishment have dreamed up a new excuse to stop people asking questions about the whole fiasco – Hillary Clinton won because her name was higher up on the ballot paper!
“Without a doubt, a big source of the discrepancy between the pre-election surveys and the election outcome in New Hampshire is the order of candidates’ names on the ballot and in the surveys,” says Stanford University professor Jon Krosnick . “Our analysis of all recent primaries in New Hampshire showed that there was always a big primacy effect — big name, big-vote-getting candidates got 3 percent or more votes more when listed first on the ballot than when listed last.”
Research does show that this has a minor impact of increasing a candidate’s numbers, but only by a maximum average of about 2% – Hillary had to overturn a mammoth deficit of 10-13% ( Zogby had Obama leading her 42/29 per cent before the primary.
However, with Barack Obama showing little interest in contesting the decision, it appears that no proper investigation of what happened will take place and Hillary will roll into Michigan safe in the knowledge that, as the anointed Neo-Con establishment candidate, she has the full support of crooked Diebold voting machines in her bid to steal the nomination even though a growing number of Democrats are rejecting her pro-war, big government underpinnings.