I'm not an expert on this, but is there an obvious explanation for why Obama had a 7.5 percent advantage over Clinton in New Hampshire votes counted by hand and Clinton had a 5.5 percent advantage in votes counted by machine? I presume that it's a function of differing locations, with the more urban Clinton districts relying more on machines. Is that the right inference?
Uh, yes. You figured it all out, not very hard. (HT: Instapundit)
Actually, it is pretty easy to understand. HRC won "old New Hampshire" the urban, industrial areas where the Clinton machine could operate full throttle. Obama won the more upscale, less populated places, the small college towns, of "New New Hampshire." Basically, Dunkin' Donuts beat Starbucks (I saw that somewhere today, though I forget where).
Unless of course, it is all a conspiracy by Karl Rove in connection with Diebold. Yea, that it.