While I remain leery of making an issue of the New Hampshire results in terms of voting irregularities with the Diebold type machines, it really irritates me when someone like Kos dismisses the speculation as kooky fringenut talk. The really irrational position to is discount the possibility that it could, and in fact did, already occur, in 04 at least. The machines have been proven to be hackable at worst and unreliable at best.
I've seen some mockery from the wingers that now the Dems are accusing their own of fraud, but that's not really the case. The machines are under the control of companies that are GOP friendly and the outcome of both races is material to their long term strategy. The GOP wants to keep Hillary as their convenient demon. They could have a lot of reasons to skew the results in her favor.
Furthermore, the suspicions are bi-partisan.
It wasn't just on the Democratic side: Supporters of Texas Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Paul were pointing to discrepancies in at least one town, where dozens of votes cast were initially counted as zero – before an elections official corrected the error. Mr. Paul's campaign did not return calls seeking comment.Granted without a wider audit, one irregularity doesn't mean much but it could certainly explain why Ron Paul didn't do as well as I expected. In addition, a further breakdown of the numbers does lead to some interesting data. While I continue to think that New Hampshire is not probably the right place to force the issue, the greater concern of voting integrity needs to be addressed and a verifiable count restored before the general election.