According to preliminary media results by municipality, Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247 hand counted votes) to Brown's 30,136, which garnered him 47.77% of hand counted votes. Margin: 3.35% lead for Coakley.
Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S locations, and 187 Diebold locations, with two I call the mystery municipalities (Northbridge and Milton) apparently using optical scanners, not sure what kind.
ES&S RESULTS
The greatest margin between the candidates was with ES&S machines -- 53.64% for Brown, 45.31% for Coakley, a margin for Brown of 8.33%. It looks like ES&S counted a total of 620,388 votes, with 332,812 going to Brown and 281,118 going to Coakley. Taken overall, the difference -- 8.33% Brown (ES&S) added to 3.35% Coakley (Hand Count) shows an 11.68% difference between the ES&S and the Hand Counts. Of course, as Mark Twain used to say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. These statistics don't prove anything, and probably shouldn't be discussed without a grain of salt handy before examining more detailed demographics.
As a point of reference, however, in the Maine gay marriage issue recently there was no significant overall difference between machine count and hand count locations.
DIEBOLD RESULTS
Diebold's results are 51.42% for Brown, with 791,272 Republican votes counted by Diebold, vs. 47.61% for Coakley, with 732,633 Democratic votes counted by Diebold, for a spread of 3.81% favoring Brown.
LATE-REPORTED RESULTS
It's always interesting to watch hand counts beat machine count results to the newspaper.
In the Massachusetts special senate election, results from six of 71 hand count locations were reported about 2 1/2 hours after the polls closed, with the remaining 65 hand count locations in right away. The slower hand count results represent 8.45% of all hand count locations.
These latecoming hand-counted results favored Coakley very heavily (she got 55.68% of these, earning 4,610 votes to Brown's 42.9%, representing 3,552, a 12.78% margin) Whether the reports came to the media late or the media posted them late is unclear.
Son of a bitch!
Why in the hell did Coakley concede before a hand recount was conducted at ALL of the polling locations?? And why did the MSM not pick this story up?
So NOW we learn that Ted Kennedy's senate seat might STILL be in the hands of Democrats, and that the 60 vote, filibuster proof margin for health care could still have still been retained, and because Coakley conceded before they asked for a hand recount, she potentially damaged her party, her President, and her country.
I have no words.
(A very grateful hat tip to Jerry. Thanks for this link buddy.)
Update: Some people are arguing that I am jumping to conclusions or that the discrepancy between the machine count and the hand count is not that important.
I disagree with both arguments.
I am not saying that Coakley won this election, I am saying that because she conceded we will never really know if she won or not.
We KNOW that there have been multiple problems reported concerning our electronic voting machines.
We KNOW that the teabaggers poured a lot of money into Scott Brown's campaign and that the outcome was very important for their cause.
We KNOW that there were no exit polls conducted.
With all of those considerations it would seem obvious that such an important election would call for an increase in scrutiny and that the Democrats demand a recount if the election went in Brown's favor. There is nothing wrong with that, and we can say with absolute certainty that if the election had gone Coakley's way the Repugs would have thrown a giant hissy fit and demanded a recount as soon as possible. And they would have been completely within their rights to do so.
But what did Martha Coakley do? She conceded only an hour after the polls closed!
Why? Was her favorite television show about to start? Did she have a hot date? Did she leave her fucking oven on? What could possibly have been more important then making sure every Massachusetts's voter's ballot was counted correctly?
Not one damn thing! And yet nobody seems to have cared enough about Ted Kennedy's senate seat to to glove up and fight for it.
Martha Coakley, the people of Massachusetts. and the Democratic party should all, each and every one of them, feel ashamed. You let down your country. You let down your President. And you shit on the memory of Ted Kennedy.
If this is accurate and the seat is still in the hands of the Democrats, can they ask Brown to step aside and get someone else (not Coakley - she sounds like she does not really want this seat and she definitely from what little I have read does not deserve it) to fill the seat?
ReplyDeleteI just checked Boston.com the online version of the Globe. This hasn't been mentioned yet - why? You got the scoop before the Globe?
ReplyDeleteJEEZUZ EFFING CHRIST: WTF?!!!
ReplyDeleteDid Coakley get paid off to concede asap by the Rethugs? Why else would she hurt two people by racing to the phone. FISHY!
Gryphen, I've been reading (and enjoying) your blog for a few months. I have to say you lost me on this one. You're going to have to explain this a lot more clearly before I buy into it.
ReplyDeleteDon't go off on a theory unless you have the goods to back it up soundly. Otherwise it damages your credibility. If you've really got something here I'll gladly eat crow. If not, leave this type of thing to Nate Silver.
Well this is very unsettling, nauseating and down right embarrassing in a society of such advancement such as ourselves also.
ReplyDeleteWhat fools we must look like to those that watch this tale unfurl.
I was never sure why she conceded at all-- she could've kept the seat tied up for months, the way Al Franken's seat was tied up.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Gryphen, for acknowledging this issue. One of those 1984 kinds of legacies from the Bush era was the election reform that mandated these damn machines. A gift that keeps on giving to the Republicans just like the current Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteWe can only hope that she UNCONCEDES. Altho she was rather quick with the "Oh Well" speech. I would have thought the Dems would have fought to hold that seat by recounts & such.
ReplyDeleteLook how long it took to get Franken seated for MN. And even NY 23rd had several issues.
weren't there problems with those machines before ?
ReplyDeleteEither way I doubt anything more will come out of this, doesn't seem like anybody in the MSM is interest.
I wondered last Tuesday, WHY she conceded so early. It just didn't make sense.
ReplyDeletewowza,,,the first wtf of the week.
ReplyDeleteo/t
thee View inspired a lil happy dancing around here...
Go Team Whoop/Joy !!
Aim for the fences Elin !!
OMG. Can it even be possible?!?!?!
ReplyDeleteoh please oh please oh please let Coakley be put in that senate seat ***I do believe in miracles, I do believe in miracles.....***
ReplyDeleteWOW is all I can say
I won't place any bets, or hold my breath - but it doesn't hurt to cross all fingers and toes
Well, frankly, concession is not a legal act, so it matters not outside the realm of civil discourse.
ReplyDeleteHUH????
ReplyDelete"Why in the hell did Coakley concede before a hand count was conducted at ALL of the polling locations??"
ReplyDeleteBecause she's an IDIOT,... and an arrogant FOOL ! Who refuses to meet the people,... who takes a VACATION in the middle of an important election ? An arrogant, foolish idiot,... Coakley !
She thumbed her nose at her "constituents" and we are going to pay the price for it.
This is all just sinking in - I'm a bit stunned as I'm sure most folks are who are hearing about this for the first time - soooooo does this really mean Coakley could win ? and if so, how long before we know for sure ?
ReplyDeletethe Diebold machines are HIGHLY suspect. Ask Ohio how they worked out....
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this Gryphen. It is very important.
ReplyDeleteOne of the many effects of the right wing media barrage is to create the illusion that the Teabaggers are more popular than they actually are-- same with Alaskan media whore $arah Palin. Clearly there was funny business with the voting boxes here, but also a quick acceptance/concession --I wonder what that was really about.
I am sooo F####pi$$ed off at the Dems, I could scream!!!! Just this morning, I let one of their callers know what I think (and I feel kind of sorry for that lady - she was so totally overwhelmed, LOL!)
ReplyDeleteI was totally dismayed when Kerry gave up before midnight even hit on election night. Couldn't get it through my head that he would campaign the way he did, and then lay down and play dead.
The same here with this election.
I thought that when the Dems took over in 2006, they would immediately tackle the voting boxes. But NOOO! They kept the system as it was, did NOTHING to get rid of Diebold, did nothing to get rid of the other crooked systems.
So, now we STILL have the same systems in place.
IMHO, the only reason Obama won was that the Rethugs KNEW we were f%%%ed after gwb, and that they needed a whipping boy, and who better than a BLACK (GASP!!!) 'boy' to take the blame and clean up the mess they left us with. Mark my words, in 2012, the Rethugs will win by a wide margin, because we still will have the same hackable systems in place as before, and by then, they have a convenient whipping boy to blame the mess on - because the American Public has the attention span of a 3 year old and will have totally forgotten the last eight years. (they already have mostly forgotten...)
OK. Sorry for my rant. Soapbox Mode
O/T:
ReplyDeleteJust an FYI... your link to Oz Mudflats keeps going its Jan. 13th post if you click the Blog title.... I have to click the *post* title to get to your current post. Thought you and/or Oz might want to fix that.
She never wanted to win. She ran a lousy campaign and did nothing to help herself. She not only damaged her party, our president and our country - she did it intentionally.
ReplyDeletePossible but not very likely. Without a closer look at the districts in which the Diebold machines counted there is little use getting everyone bent out of shape on possible cheating again. Does make for a lively blog though!
ReplyDeleteWhy can't she protest her concession because the information that she was given by the MSM was incorrect, misleading her into conceding the race.
ReplyDeleteMind you, many Dems want to maintain the perception that they are noble, above the fray, gentlemen or gentlewomen who will not scrap for their position.
Now is the time to finally get rid of Diebold and other electronic voting machines.
My daughter and I worked the elections in Kansas for a primary race. The Diebold machines kept issuing Republican cards to Democrats. The Democrats who received those got to try again and if the machine failed to spit out the correct party docket, they had to fill in paper provisional ballots not realizing that the provisional ballots are only counted if the tallies at the end were very close.
I was just about to send this blackboxvoting.org link to you Gryph--heard it this morning on Stephanie Miller and about fell off my chair. Thom Hartmann so far hasn't mentioned it at all. I was suspecting shenanigans since the entire MA scenario seemed so bizarre. Who knows what'll come out of this news? Demand a recount? It may be too late to resurrect this one, but if nothing is done, I fear for the upcoming November elections. I'll start by forwarding this post to my email list and get the word out.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if she did it intentionally, but she certainly conceded so fast she should have been embarrassed to do so. Not to mention the damage to her president, her party and the nation. And yes, once again where is the MSM on this? We are so f***ked.
ReplyDeleteJust noticed that the date on the blackbox article is January 20th at 1 AM, so this info was coming in and being analyzed right after the election was over, yet I just heard about it this morning on (progressive) radio. If MC was "persuaded" by the Thugs to concede immediately, would it honestly surprise anyone here?
ReplyDeleteWell, Gore was going to concede- he'd called Bush and congratulated him, and then called him back and told him he wasn't going to concede yet.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why Coakley couldn't call Brown and say, "In view of this news, I am retracting my concession." And then call a press conference and say, "In view of the fact that hand counts may alter the results of the election, I am retracting my concession. When the handcounts are final, and we know the will of the people, then I will either expect a concession from Mr Brown, or I will concede again."
Of course, that would take guts. Something that Democrats annoyingly don't have much of.
Ivyfree
I wish we could all vote like Washington state, by mail. Almost everyone would vote then and there would be no BS with counting machines and hackable voting machines.
ReplyDeleteI imagine she conceded right away so she could go hide in shame somewhere, and do you blame her?
ReplyDeleteYup, anon@11:21am--some time after the NY23 election (not sure how long) Hoffman retracted his concession as they found absentee paper ballots that hadn't been counted. Then, it was found that the Dem candidate won the uncounted votes, and Hoffman conceded again. Of course the Teabaggers made a loud deal of Hoffman withdrawing his concession, but very little was made of his "re"concession.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gryph on his update. The point here is not the outcome of this past election, though proving there were hijinks would be satisfying! We're looking at bullshit happening at polls all over the country come November if this incident isn't given some wide play. We'll need oversight on election results (we'll see if that happens), along with exit polling to play matchy-matchy at the end. I'm going to volunteer at the polls; it's all I can do.
This information needs to get to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (and maybe even Ed Schultz) - one them I think would at least look into and if there was anythig to report they would
ReplyDeleteMy impression is that she really didn't want to win for some reason. This was evident in the way she ran her campaign and how quickly she conceded.
ReplyDeleteGryphen, you see upset. Take deep slooooooow breaths, get a cup of really hot tea.
ReplyDeleteSpiked.
And work a cross word puzzle or google Wakiki an looks beautiful beaches.
It is a bitch though, isn't it.
Personally, I think all ballots whould be hand written and hand counted. With the only exceptions being the visually or physically impaired who cannot manage a hand written ballot.
I'd even volunteer to stay up and count them.
That is the only way to really know, that is the only way to have a true paper trail, that is the only way to have an accurate recount.
What the hell is wrong with politicans that want tamperable voting systems???
Whhhat a silly question.
It did seem rather odd that she conceded so soon. I was shocked when I read it. I would think the next morning or late -- late at night. I think all ballots should be counted by hand. I don't trust electronic voting machines.
ReplyDeleteI agree the Rethugs would have demanded a recount and a few appeals -- look at poor Franken, it took how many months?
P.S. My vote for her reason is the oven :o) - Made me chuckle through my anger.
I you goggle "coakley election" "hand count" here are numerous articles
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to read about this. I was horrified when she conceded before the counting was over. I don't know how her handlers allowed such a thing. It was commonly assumed in this election that neither party would concede until all avenues had been explored and there was no choice. Certainly Brown would never have done what Coakley did. A pox on her house, regardless.
ReplyDeletegit DOWN, gryphen! she left her goddam oven on!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on all counts. it's amazing that these 2 people are the best ma had to offer it's citizens. but I guess it's just one more example that we can just stick a fork in this mofo! that supreme court ruling really cemented it for me.
I live in Massachusetts, and I want as much as everyone here for this election result to be different, believe me. (I loved Ted K and am heartbroken that his seat would unravel health insurance reform.) But please, everyone, take a deep breath. Although I was surprised to get home at 9:15 and find that Coakley had already conceded, it was in line with the election-eve predictions that the outcome would hinge on the turnout in the cities and how well Coakley did there -- that would be a clear early barometer of the result. The predictions were that if there was high turnout in the cities and Coakley carried them, she would likely win. But the turnout in the cities was much lower than in the last election, while the suburbs turned out in force. (I live in the burbs and had to go back several times because of the huge traffic jam by our polling place -- but it was a really crummy day for folks who didn't have their own transportation -- they were at a real disadvantage.) Also, for those who are from out-of-state, please don't bash Martha Coakley so hard. She is a smart, hard-working, decent person who has done a lot of good as Attorney General. I agree that she misjudged the dynamic of this election, but so did a lot of people, including the national party and locals like myself. The primary got a lot of attention, and then many people took for granted that the Dems would win, so we got involved in the holidays, and we didn't wake up to the danger of Scott Brown's very effective campaign until it was too late. Yes, MC didn't run the best campaign, but I strongly suspect that the Brown buzz saw would have chopped down any of her primary opponents as well. Finally, I don't believe that the election is yet certified by the Secretary of State (will try to find out for sure and if it is, I'll report back); until that happens, it is my understanding that the count is not considered final.
ReplyDeleteMe again (from Massachusetts): here is an article on the timeframe for certification of results: http://tinyurl.com/ylaclnm
ReplyDeleteI would love to hold out hope that this election result could be reversed, but I am doubtful. It may be that the hand-counted ballot sites are more common in western Mass, which Coakley won handily (just a possibility). My sense is that the key to the election was that Brown successfully positioned himself as an independent more than a Repub, and independents are the biggest voting bloc here, despite our generally blue politics. And the suburbs came out in force, while the cities did not. If you've seen the election maps, you'll know that he painted most of the state red, except for western MA, which was solidly blue.
Being from California, I have been angered in the past when candidates in national elections conceded before California votes were counted. Maybe somebody should introduce legislation that nobody can concede until at least the next day. What is the damn hurry anyway? It's not like they have to rush to their new job that night.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame Coakley was the candidate. She really never seemed to even want the job.
There were reports on the night of the election from 5 different precincts were voters stated that the ballots they received were pre-marked for Brown. A press statement was made and that was the last I heard or saw on it.
ReplyDeleteHow Barack Obama is paving the way for a Palin Presidency
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theroot.com/views/how-barack-obama-paving-way-palin-presidency?GT1=38002
I would assume that if fraud were involved, a concession could be voided. But why in learningyard hell weren't there exit polls?????
ReplyDeleteGryph, I like ya a lot. Your on my 'must read' everyday. You've nailed paling to the wall and keep the nails comming.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm glad Brown is there. I'm GOP, and like the 'balance' that might be there now. I say might, as we don't know yet what Brown will do. I hope he does not turn into a male Palin. In 2 years, you can have the seat back, if it does not work out.
I like to see both sides. I voted for Obama, but I'm GOP at the marrow.
A concession has no force of law. It is just a diplomatic gesture to the winning party. If the votes show Coakley won, she won whether or not she retracts her concession.
ReplyDeleteWhat we really need is our own ie "progressive populist" movement, that is the equivalent of the tea party movement but on the progressive side. The key focus to be the absolute importance of a high quality elections systems that is monitored the same way overseas elections are monitored, that "banana republics" often have better monitored elections than we do.
ReplyDeleteTea baggers claim they represent the majority and clearly they do not. However. they do tap into the feeling that the people are not listened to by "the government". Faux News messes with people's heads about the supposed ACORN voting fraud when in reality ACORN is the one who reports the bogus registrations and nobody votes those fake names. People are not told the distinction by Faux, who also always show ACORN footage with all black folks protesting, giving a false idea that ACORN is some radical all black group.
Funny they didn't show the ALL WHITE ACORN group from my old neighborhood, when they protested high utility bills that later turned out to be that illegal scheme with those California energy traders later caught laughing about the money they were making and grannies having trouble paying their power bills...
Anyway, both the black box voting AND the lack of quality election monitoring should be important to everyone who says they value democracy. We need people marching over this issue. We also need people educated on just how much the urban/populous votes are devalued in our current Presidential elections. The 41 Republican senators represent far less than 41% of the actual U.S. population.
Add in the fact that 41 beats 59 in the Senate these days. This again is pretty clear that "majority rule" has been turned on its head. It is one thing to have a representative form of government, and SOME protection for the minority. But we've got 41 people who represent way less than 41% of the population who beat the 59 votes. It's BS. We need a progressive push at these two issues: poorly run elections with black box voting, and rule by the minority.
Sorry, that was long, but I am tired of seeing elections that cannot be trusted.
Relax, people. This isn't about an AK election where someone like Palin could manipulate the results.
ReplyDeleteA few issues have already been raised and the MA Sect of State - a democrat named Billy Galvin - will have his folks look at all of them in detail. If there is anything along the lines of what G is suggesting, then Galvin will address those specific issues.
And, he gets to certify the results.
But even if he uses your raw numbers (the percentages are meaningless), I see no change in the outcome.
This blog posting by Bev Harris on BlackBoxVoting.org was last Wednesday Jan. 20th -- today's Monday Jan. 25th.
ReplyDeleteSo, what's the upshot of these machine and paper ballot counts as of TODAY?
I didn't see anything in that blog post that said "To Be Continued..."
I hope you're not jumping to conclusions based on a blog post nearly a week old, Gryphen.
During the 2004 election the exit polls had John Kerry winning the Presidency by such a comfortable margin that Karen Hughes had the regrettable task of having to tell her boss, George W. Bush that he would not be staying in the White House for another 4 years. She said she had never seen him so relaxed during an election night in their history together of gubernatorial races and presidential elections. When she told him what the news pundits had determined, he just smiled and told her "not to worry, we have it covered". She said later, "I should have had more faith in him. The American people wanted and needed him to take control of the country for four more years."
ReplyDeleteThat is what I read in Salon back in early 2005 and was thoroughly disgusted. I knew that the CEO of Diebold had said he would deliver the election to Dubya and he didn't mean just those campaign checks he got from friends and other executives. He literally meant to "give" the election to Bush. Nobody was happy with him at the time. In fact conservatives were disgusted with his out of control spending. Now it looks like it may have been done again. Would anyone really be surprised if this happened? I think we need to demand that these machines provide a paper trail of our votes so we know they are counted properly. When you exit, you receive a receipt of your ballot showing who you clearly voted for and another that goes into a locked ballot box that will be compared to the Diebold results.
I can imagine the uproar but if the actual results were to show that Coakley won, wouldn't they have to give the seat to her? She conceded far too early, I'll give you that. I also thought there was some exit polling done. I think that if Brown does go to Washington and stay there, there will be serious buyers' remorse in the part of the people of Massachusetts. Say what you want about Teddy Kennedy, he made some very serious mistakes in his younger days and there is no excuse for them, but he then spent the remainder of his life working for the people. He NEVER forgot who put him in Washington. Brown will never look back. he's probably picturing himself in the White House already. The man has a huge ego from the articles I've read.
Coakely is an idiot and a fool, and as a Democrat, I never would have voted for her. She does not deserve the seat on any number of counts. I'm not entirely comfortable with Brown, but I say give him a chance.
ReplyDeleteAnd, gotta tell ya, I'm not at all happy where the health care reform is at the present moment. . .I'm not entirely unhappy if it goes back to the drawing board, in part or in whole. We Dems did a piss poor job of communication all this past year on this issue.
Perhaps another year will see some light bulbs going on and some real, honest communication EXPLAINING something as huge as this to the American people.
I think a lot more Americans are behind this than is evident - Republicans and Democrats but the current admin treated it like a political football and didn't make the proper effort to inform the citizens, play by play. This is too big a package to ram through in less than year. And the Republicans did absolutely nothing on their end. Absolutely nothing.
And I'm all for it, universal health coverage that is. But my part simply has to do a better job.
First, please! 40-something percent of MA voters did NOT vote for Scott Brown. Quit blaming us all!
ReplyDeleteSecond, Martha Coakley did well in Western MA, the part of the state from which she originally hails, and Northeastern MA because she lives there now. She would have done well in the cities, except for low voter turnout due in part to voter apathy and in part to the poor weather on the day of election.
Thirdly, Martha Coakley spent a lot of money on the Democratic primary. She had a lot of competition for the nom, including a man who essentially self-financed his campaign. She had to spend late December fundraising, thus allowed Brown (who had teabag money raining in, faster than he could spend it) to get a jump on her.
You can hold your breath for Secretary of State Galvin to find something, but I'm not.
I do not think Coakley wanted the seat. Too much work.
ReplyDeleteSo what happens if after all of the votes are counted, hand, machine, mail in, recount, whatever...it turns out she won?
ReplyDeleteDoes her conceding override the actual count?
Can you win and concede and the person who lost gets it anyway?
Huh?
The final voter results trumps any concession speech.
ReplyDelete