Chris Chatham just published these "interesting" findings on Developing Intelligence about a half-an-hour ago: "The Diebold Effect": Hillary's Votes Higher From Diebold Machines Even Controlling for Demographics (education, income, population, etc)
To my complete (and continuing) amazement, the "diebold effect" on Hillary's votes remains after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables, with a p-value of <.001: that is, there are less than 1:1000 odds for this difference occurring through chance alone, and that's after adjusting for variability in Hillary's votes due to education, income, total population, and population density.
While this "diebold effect" varies in magnitude depending on the exact covariates used, it seems to center around an additional 5.2% of votes going for Clinton from Diebold machines. The same analysis shows a Diebold disadvantage for Obama of about -4.2%, significant with a p<.001, using the same covariates.
Chatham also points to a report from the 11th ( "New Hampshire Democratic Primary Election Results Hand Count versus Machine Counts" ) that asks:
"The press has reported that the NH polls erred due to "damsel in distress" and "Bradley" effects2 which caused a last-minute surge for Clinton. Why should there have been such a large "closet racism" or "damsel in distress" vote surge for Clinton exclusively in machine-counted precincts - even of the same size?"PDF of report is HERE.
UPDATE: Stokes @ Ars Technica has some cautionary thoughts with Analysis: Clinton, Obama, and New Hampshire by the numbers
The e-voting activism world is an odd mix of patriotism, territorialism, and old-fashioned entrepreneurism. Basically, everyone is racing to find that remarkable scoop that's going to get them quoted on CNN.