TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
16.02.2008
What Happened in New York?

This doesn't sound good:

Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

According to the story nobody really seems to suspect foul play, but still.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Saturday, February 16, 2008 12:55 PM with 10 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

AaronBBrown said:

F-ing voting machines, what does it say about the United States of America, the most technologically advanced nation on the planet, that we've lost the ability to count?

We've allowed flawed technology to interpose itself in our voting process, and the results are undermining democracy and the credibility of this nation as a Republic.

February 16, 2008 1:34 PM

liebig said:

People shouldn't leap to conspiracy theories when there are plausible innocent explanations.  And the plausible innocent explanation here is . . .?

February 16, 2008 1:38 PM

skipper2379 said:

How could Mark Penn spin this? Hmm...it proves that Obama is a roll of the dice! Even if Hillary doesn't win a district, she at least gets some votes. Obama, on the other hand, is entirely hit or miss.

February 16, 2008 1:41 PM

bcbaird said:

So far, the *official* tally seems to be alright... and even if this was some grand Clinton-esque scheme to steal some of Obama's thunder... well, no harm, no foul, right?

February 16, 2008 2:11 PM

liebig said:

I don't know, bcbaird.  Isn't attempted robbery also a crime?

February 16, 2008 2:36 PM

arsonplus said:

By "nobody" Josh means New Yorks "election officials" ... so I'm with liebig on this one.

February 16, 2008 2:37 PM

scottlooper said:

You forget the impact Harlem's felt from Bill's presence.  

February 16, 2008 2:42 PM

cypess said:

There's nothing amiss when the state's Senator's opponent doesn't get a single vote in that state... even in a locale that would normally be a stronghold for the opponent.

Although, I remember a funny story back in 2000 when the heavy Jewish areas of Florida voted for the crypto-Nazi Pat Buchanan instead of voting for the Democratic ticket - which had the historic first of a non-Christian on a national ticket - and in a state run by the brother of the opponent.

February 16, 2008 8:26 PM

blackton said:

simple explanation, Obamas name wasn't on the ballot.

February 16, 2008 8:28 PM

ralphnelle said:

Seems to me there's a wiser-than-thou group think fallacy among TNR's readers re voting anomalies. Having seen the democratic party's debacle of disorganization up close this year, I would be shocked if there weren't foul play occurring in many places around the country. If I had wanted to I could have voted several hundred times on Super Tuesday, and nobody would have known the difference.

February 18, 2008 2:56 AM