Real Time With Bill Maher ~ June 4 2010 ~ Opening+Begala

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

What He Just Said: The Brilliant Bob Somerby on the Madness of Maureen Dowd

March 30, 2009 9:46 est.

BS was the second guy I ever read on the tubes…-JT

Feel free to focus for five…you little freaks…


STILL DUMBING US DOWN! A former sports guy—and a former Rhodes Scholar—continue to dumb liberals down: // link // print // previous // next //

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2009

Since we asked: On Friday, we asked a question (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/27/09): Now that the Washington Post had semi-corrected its bungled report about the weakling Obama Admin, would Rachel Maddow follow suit? Last Tuesday night, Maddow’s report had been even more wrong than the Post’s efforts had been.

Did Maddow correct? We’d have to say no. She did devote a lengthy segment to the topic in question—a segment we thought was quite remarkable for the ways it seemed to pretend that Maddow was brilliantly right all along. To see Friday’s segment, just click here (it runs more than seven minutes). We’ll discuss this topic later this week.

By the way, do you want to see Maddow’s original segment? It seems to have disappeared.

The emperor’s favorite columnist: Sadly for you and your whole family, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” may be Hans Christian Andersen’s most contemporary fable. Quite frequently, people simply can’t see lunacy, even as it stands before them—if the lunacy in question involves a famous authority figure.

We thought of Andersen when we read Maureen Dowd’s Sunday column. Dowd is the most famous columnist at our most influential newspaper—and she’s been visibly crazy for years. [Read more…]

Inauguration 2009

B.O. by Tullycast

B.O. by Tullycast


Bev Harris Makes Eerie Prediction About New Hampshire Voting Machines

From Black Box Voting


Another observation: At this stage of the game, and this may not be relevant statistically due to demographic differences in reporting locations (which are nowhere identified as far as I can tell)…

The voting machine results coming in for the Democratic candidates do not match the exit polls for the top two. Obama was the clear winner, according to reports I heard based on the exit polls. Hillary has a commanding lead from the incoming voting machine reports.

There are two stages to the projections: Exit polling, which is what people said they voted for, and voting machine results, which is what the computers report. Early projections come from exit polls, and as the evening progresses, what’s coming in comes from voting machines.

We saw exit polls award the race to Gore in 2000, and then voting machines award it to Bush (and then, when the minus 16,022 votes were pulled out of the Diebold optical scan — the same make, model and version as New Hampshire’s machines), they put the candidates at a tie. A statewide hand count later showed Gore won.

In 2002, the same pattern appeared, but was more pronounced: The exit polls went one way, but when the voting machine results came in it flipped.

Watch the Dem race very carefully to see if the front runners remain flipped from the exit polls as the machine results come in.

The two areas identified as most likely to be dirty in NH are Manchester and Nashua, according to my sources on the ground there.

In New Hampshire, I expect to see the first hour’s results to be mostly machine results, with some machine results withheld for the very end. The hand counts will take a little longer to come in, but since I like to make bets, I’m betting that some voting machine locations will be withheld until after the hand count places.

New Hampshire is not identifying which locations are in, unless I’m missing something at the Sec. State web site.

add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank

%d bloggers like this: