On NH:

The vote count there came up with that spread because the hand counts and the vote counts were counting two different groups of people. Rural areas were more likely to go Obama, and they were also more likely to use hand-counting instead of machine counting. In fact, the Salon article you linked says so much, and even says that more densely populated areas that counted by hand went for Clinton in an even larger percentage:

Let me say that again: In large areas, Clinton did better in places where votes were counted by hand than where votes were counted by machine. Does that mean that it was Clinton who was robbed, in these places, by voting machines?

The town-by-town results also closely follow the Kerry/Dean split, which makes sense since Clinton was running on pretty much the same issues as Kerry did and had access to the DNC Massachusetts GOTV operation that he did.

You say that "the controversial Diebold machines" were used in New Hampshire, but they simply weren't. The machines used there were the Diebold AccuVote OS, not the Diebold AccuVote TS. The difference is that the OS is just a counter of paper ballots, the TS is the touch-screen machine of Maryland and Florida fame. The only time the OS has been hacked was in a laboratory setting at the U. of Connecticut.

The OS also requires that everyone use a paper ballot. I don't know if your Spanish friends know how the ballots are being counted in their country, but the people of NH all used paper ballots just like they do, except for a few handicapped people. It was just a machine that counted them, much like a Scantron machine that gets used to grade tests in schools.

In fact, the fact that NH used the OS instead of the TS is the only way that the recount that Kucinich is asking for is possible. If there wasn't a paper trail, then there'd be nothing to recount.

There also isn't much incentive for Clinton to have stolen this election. NH has a decentralized voting process - it's controlled by county instead of the state Dep't of State. For her to have hacked the system, she would have had to have had operatives working for her all over the state breaking into the machines (and none of them got caught, of course), for results that would easily be overturned with a recount. And all for what - to get a few more votes? Both she and Obama got 9 delegates - there weren't any "winners", so to speak. A recount, even if it follows the rural percentages, won't change that.

And she would have gone through all of that and risked tremendously hurting her reputation at a critical time for nothing? She was first in her class at Yale Law, I don't think she's that dumb.

The Salon article you link to even calls this a "conspiracy theory" and that "The charges don't hold water". Dana Houle said:

Many folks immediately suspect that any election results they found surprising—and whether they know enough about local and statewide voting patterns to be surprised is always a good question—are most easily explained by malfeasance by the Diebold corporation or exploitation of its machines. There are many problems for these folks who look for the most exotic (and maybe reassuring) explanation for an election result they don't like, but in this case, let's start out with a fairly basic one: voters in every town in New Hampshire cast their vote on a paper ballot, and in more than half of the towns in New Hampshire, the paper ballots are counted by hand.[...]

But ultimately, there's tremendous arrogance and/or ignorance at play when people assume that Hillary Clinton's victory in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary is or might be explained by election fraud. Has it not occurred to those people who know little or nothing about voting patterns in New Hampshire that the hundreds of staffers on the Obama and Edwards campaigns, who've immersed themselves in past voting data and models of expected vote turnouts for Tuesday, wouldn't these staffers have noticed discrepancies that might warrant a recount? If Tuesday's results really were the likely result of malfeasance, the Obama and Edwards campaigns would be raising holy hell. They would be seeking a recount, and investigation of the voting, and they would be doing it because they saw the irregularities in the vote results.

These are pretty large charges to raise against the folks who run elections in NH, the Clinton campaign, and, by extension, the Obama and Edwards campaigns (for not doing anything about it). And the facts just don't support election fraud.

And yeah, the K-man should have to pay for this. NH tax payers shouldn't have to pony up to satisfy his paranoia.

NV:

The situation there is quite different from the way you described.

First, this isn't about gerrymandering or lines between districts - this is about whether the at-large districts created on the strip for hotel, restaurant, and casino workers unfairly advantages those workers. It can't be about gerrymandering since gerrymandering is about the lines between districts - at-large districts' only lines are those between states. And it's not like anyone's disputing those.

You're wrong to say that "Clinton supporters" are at work here. It's the state's teachers' union that's suing. Whether they break for Obama, Clinton, or Edwards is another question entirely, but they are flatly a union that hasn't endorsed anyone. (Am I sensing an anti-Clinton bias here, first accusing her of stealing an election and then accusing her of gerrymandering?)

The Clinton/Obama dynamic comes from the fact that there are a few known Clinton supporters in the teacher's union, and they filed suit to get rid of the at-large districts right after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama. I honestly think that the NY Times was reading a bit too much into that, since the teachers' union does have a point - special districts were created for hotel, etc., workers and none for their workers who have to work at the same time, but that's besides the point. The Clinton/Obama dynamic is implied, and not as explicit as you make it seem.

The situation could also be explained by a rural/urban dynamic as well, since the teachers' union workers were spread throughout the state and they often work outside their district, the culinary workers' union's members are mostly in Vegas. In fact, the lawsuit is basically about how Las Vegas gets a disproportionately large amount of representation.

That's all in the article you linked.

Voter fraud~

Sure, it's possible that busloads of people (not getting into the class/race implications of that concept) were brought in to vote for Clinton. Has anyone seen these buses? I'd imagine that a fleet of buses would be rather hard to hide. Does anyone have records of her chartering a fleet of buses large enough to steal an election? I'd also imagine that it'd be rather expensive.

Well, no, but that wouldn't really stop people from accusing her of stealing the election.

This is rather interesting that this is being posted on an LGBT blog that originated in Indiana, since there's currently a Supreme Court case about Indiana's voter ID law. The law requires that people show a driver's license to vote or get a state ID. From NPR (an article that provides a pretty good summary of the case):

The Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union went to court seeking to block the law, noting that there is not a single recorded case of voter-impersonation fraud in Indiana's history. A federal appeals court acknowledged that the law poses a heavier burden on groups that tend to vote Democratic — minorities, the poor and the elderly. But, the court said, the burden is slight.

It's been pushed by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, of course, because while there hasn't been a single known case of voter fraud in Indiana, the new law has disenfranchised many minority, poor, and elderly voters who can't meet the requirements of the new law.

While a tight voter ID law may work in a European country that has a longer history of state regulation of identification than the US (I don't know about Spain, but a cop in France can stop you anywhere, on the street, at work, on the train, and ask you for ID and you have to show it. I've been stopped before myself, mainly because I have a bad habit of going for long walks when I can't sleep), it's not going to prevent something like the Florida debacle of 2000. If a partisan election official stops a recount before it's had a chance to be completed, it doesn't matter if people presented ID or not. If a Supreme Court stops the recount on partisan lines, using paper ballots (which Floridians used in 2000) isn't going to change anything. And if there aren't enough ballots, machines, or booths for everyone (like in Ohio in 2004), there really isn't much that presenting a state ID can fix, other than, I suppose, to disenfranchise people and free up machines.

MSNBC is trying to make the issue in NV part of the whole race debate too:

"Next up for the Democrats were precinct caucuses Saturday in Nevada. There, Clinton's supporters awaited a court ruling on a lawsuit seeking a last-minute change in rules they agreed to months ago. Their objective was to prevent several caucuses along the Las Vegas Strip, where thousands of Culinary Workers Union employees — many of them Hispanic or black — hold jobs. The rules were approved in March, when the former first lady was the overwhelming national front-runner in the race. But the union voted last week to endorse Obama, and the lawsuit followed.
Edwards is campaigning aggressively in both Nevada and South Carolina, and his aides circulated a memo during the day saying both his rivals were "deeply flawed." It said both Clinton and Obama might be unable to win the White House in November, and that Edwards, alone, was strong enough to fight the Republicans and corporate interests all the way to victory."

Similar to the New York Times article I think they're making too much of that...maybe reading into it. As Alex pointed out:

"the teachers' union does have a point - special districts were created for hotel, etc., workers and none for their workers who have to work at the same time, but that's besides the point. The Clinton/Obama dynamic is implied, and not as explicit as you [or MSNBC-- insert here is mine,] make it seem."

I'm actually more offended by some of the media presentation of these issues than I am by the candidates.

BTW-- the bolded part is mine (strictly for emphasis)