Who Are You Going to Believe: Me Or Your Own Lying Voting Machines?

Democrats don't like voting machines:

Anyone surprised by the rumors of New Hampshire Primary election-fixing flowing through the leftie blogosphere since last week doesn't fully appreciate the Moveon.org/Daily Kos mindset. But when Bill Maher suggested on Friday night's Real Time that Republicans had somehow hacked the voting machines in order to assure a Hillary win, I must admit to being quite shocked. Unleashing such an obvious smokescreen in an effort to obscure the recent backlash to Democrat-fueled "identity politics" seemed quite the desperate act, even for a notoriously partisan bore.

Granted, given the unexpected primary results relative to pollster projections, and the fact that 80% of the votes were cast on Dem-detested Diebold's Accuvote optical scan (OS) machines, conspiracy theories were all but inevitable. And whoever first noticed that Hillary received only 34.66%* of the hand-counted vote but 40.12% of those machine tabulated likely thought he had stumbled upon the voting-fraud equivalent of the Zapruder film. Particularly since Obama's numbers followed the opposite pattern - 38.84% of the hand-count but only 35.76% machine.

But, those reflexively crying foul play conveniently ignored a few immutable facts. For one thing, on the Republican side, the disparity in Romney's hand/machine numbers (25.54%/33.04%) was greater than either of the Democrats'. Are we to believe that both contests were fixed? Besides, Romney placed second! If his machine numbers were hacked, he should fire his dreadfully inept programmers immediately.

Then there's the fairly well-known fact that hand-counts tend to take place in smaller, poorer, more rural districts. So why is it so difficult for so many on the left - who are typically quick to categorize us -- to accept that people in small or poor places tend to think and vote differently than those in larger or wealthier ones?

Maybe Democrats prefer the tried-and-true methods of stealing elections to the new. Some "candidates of change", eh?