Source: YahooNews

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton's victory in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential nominating contest confounded pollsters, who found themselves trying to explain how opinion polls got it so wrong.

Chastened experts said on Wednesday they would have to closely analyze their forecasts against the results of the New Hampshire primaries to learn why they were so right about resurgent John McCain's win on the Republican side but so wrong about Clinton's win among the Democrats.

Ahead of Tuesday's vote in New Hampshire, an early battleground in the state-by-state process to choose candidates for November's election, pollsters had widely predicted Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would beat Clinton in the Democrats' contest, with many foreseeing a double-digit margin.

In the event, the New York senator and former first lady beat Obama, edging him out by under 3 percentage points.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_pollsters_dc

---

It's called the Diebold phenomena

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5532

BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 1/9/2008 4:35PM

Tribune Media: MSM Failed to Note 'Hackable Diebold Red Flags' in New Hampshire Primary Results

Syndicated Columnist Robert Koehler Writes for Tomorrow's Papers: 'Possibility of Tainted Results, a Prospect Most of Media Can't Bear'

Notes Problems With NH's Diebold Machines 'Remain Unsolved'...

Syndicated Tribune Media Services columnist Bob Koehler bumps up our serious concerns about last night's wholly untransparent, and still-uncounted (by anything but a hackable Diebold computer, and a company with a questionable past, to say the least) New Hampshire Primary election results, from "blogger conspiracy theory" to mainstream media concern.

a "surge" in new voters show up when the polls indicated another Obama win in the making by over 10 points and nobody talking about

stolen election ;)

Well, actually they should not poll people at all but do all polling of the machines and see what they are programmed to do. It would be much better than constantly adjusting the polls afterwards to match what the machines have decided. At this point they really don't care who wins, they are more concerned about conditioning the American voter to trust the machines and accept that polling is no longer viable. never question the machines, it's always the pollsters, and anyone that questions the machines surely needs to classified as needing a tin foil hat. The system works, accept it ask no questions, they would never ever cheat or lie.

Please don't reply with "Why are you against transparent elections." New Hampshire was not an election nor are any of the other states conducting elections at this point.

and nobody will take any office as a result of this. NH yesterday was not an election. It was an allocation of delegates. This is very key to understanding what the process is.

and winners and loser were based off of what the hand counts and machine counts returned

We have machines to vote for us.

"Only machines can be trusted as they are objective where as people are subjective" GW Bush* November 2000 during Florida recount..

...they got it wrong because they actually CANNOT read what is in voters minds in a situation like this.
I say this not because I have total faith in the "system" but because this election with these candidates in this situation leads voters like me capable of mixed feelings.

THAT leads to volatility.

I wouldn't doubt this at all.

No, it could never be that. It would require respect.

And I don't really appreciate you trying to disengenously making it into a sexist thing.

It's about Hillary's CORPORATE TIES. Respect? That's bought and paid for that's why I don't have much for her nor her supporters.

and the dissolution of the United States, in every election, this issue will be raised.

And we will never know for certain.

Years of general sound statistics and polling have suddenly been turned upside down...in the 2000, 2004, and this election.

What changed? Diebold and ES&S electronic machines. You don't see this happening in Canada, where they use paper ballots.

how can the American people be so dumb...it's so obvious to see that votes are being corrupted.

The Obama campaign needs to bring attention to this issue...they were just had in New Hampshire...the polls showed they were WAY ahead of Clinton. Exit polls can't be 10 points completely wrong. That's WAY too much of a gap of mistake. Either people are deliberately lying to pollsters about who they voted for, or decades of polling doesn't lie and we're seeing the results of stolen elections.

The exit polls were spot on.

Apparently the exit polls are "weighted" before they're released, to reflect the actual results. I'd love to see that the "weight" was in Ohio in 2004. This bit is part of what I mean:

"3) Watch out for "The Prior." At least two networks are likely to post exit poll tabulations shortly after the polls close that will update as the election night wears on (try these links for MSNBC and CNN). Those data are weighted to whatever estimate of the outcome the analysts have greatest confidence in at any moment. By the end of the night, the tabulations will be weighted to the official count. Typically, the exit poll tabulations are weighted to something called the "Composite Estimate," a combination of the exit poll data alone and a "Prior Estimate" that is based largely on pre-election poll results. So if you look to extrapolate from the initial tabulations posted on MSNBC or CNN (as we did here on Election Night 2006), just keep in mind that in the estimate of each candidate's standing in the initial reports will likely mix exit poll and the pre-election poll estimates (not unlike the kind we report here)."

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/your_exit_polls.html

It seems to me that all the exit polls do is attempt to conform to the announced results, and invariably succeed because some statistician simply changes the exit poll results at the end of the night.
In Hillary's case, well, the Republican slime machine has invested twenty years on smearing Hillary. If they can pick their opponent by stealing Democratic primaries, then they're gonna pick her--and that's no slur on Hillary or her supporters, I might add. Just the ugly truth.

I know many Clinton supporters who are not very vocal about their choice of a candidate. I live in a place where you would expect people to be tolerant of others opinions(the SF Bay Area), and saying that I support Clinton is always bound to bring up lots of comments both for and against. I've never seen it this way before. I could say I liked Edwards in 2004, and no one would try and talk me out of it. But for some reason, people feel obligated to state their opinion about Clinton this time. I often just stay quiet because I don't want to get into a whole political discussion.

So, what I am saying is that I can understand how the polls might have been off. My own mother (in her late 60's) tells me she will be voting for Clinton, but not to mention it to my father. I'm sure if she were called by a pollster, that she would not admit to supporting Clinton if my dad was in the room. It's a strange phenomenon.

there is no process in place to insure that your vote will be accurately tabulated. I suppose if you can find a poll, or a reason, for why the results came out the way they did, you will accept them. Some of us will not. Other countries produce accurate verifiable elections...EVERY time they vote they hand count a percentage of ballots, and the computer manufacturers use open-source codes. No one needs to scream "FRAUD" in order to insure accuracy. Why can't we have the same confidence in our elections?

...that that's the very arguments made by the MSM to explain the exit poll/actual poll variance in 2004? It was because Bush voters were reluctant to say so after they voted. They'd avoid the pollsters standing around the exits or they'd lie.

OK, pretend that there's this real shame effect going on, both in 2004 and again today. So Clinton is our shame candidate? The candidate, like Bush, who people are ashamed to vote for? We know why one should feel ashamed to vote for Bush (everything from illegal wars to torture to wiretapping without warrant and on and on). Why are people ashamed to vote for Clinton? Is there something to the tag, "Bush-lite"?

Let the rigging of the election begin.

EXIT polls for NH confirm the Clinton win or...what?

Also showed that Obama had quite a few people not committed 100%. So, perhaps they switched late?

HRC was less than female to many. The natural feamle emotion be it staged or genuine more than likley won over many and they switched votes at the last minute.

Polls don't work any more because:

1. We have a viable female candidate
2. We have a viable candidate of color
3. We have non-stop instant coverage of the electionby the MSM.
4. Last but not least...Democrats have a miserable outgoing GOP President and failed party as opposition.


Add that all up and polls are wrong.

Obama/Clinton
Clinton/Obama

Which will it be....

Frankly the former as it has been preordained that that America is more sexist than racist and that will be the combination that will result in total victory.

Crazy?

Probably....

Read it here-

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/what_happened_to_polls_in_new_hampshire

Those who claim lack of transparency and suggest Clinton vote-tampering might be letting the tin foil hat slide down over their eyes.

He's possibly Diebold'ed.


2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_080109_new_hampshire_electi.htm

of residual racism in polling...

3) pretty high margins of error in most of the polls; 4) there were several events after the last polls and before the voting that could have very significantly affect turnout and choices among the undecided and those who changed their mind about a candidate, such as the sexist attacks on Clinton and women voters deciding to use their vote to try to stop them; polls could not have picked up on these

We don't know exactly what factors accounted for what but it is very easy to see how these results could have occurred.

Fewer polls would be a good thing.

The independents had the opportunity to vote in the Democratic or Republican race. Imagine you are a NH resident (who is independent) who really dislikes Romney and who prefers Obama. Knowing Obama is 10+ points up, you could shift to voting in the Republican race.
I assume this could be tested as they likely had to ask independents first where they were voting - they could compare those percents.

The other thing is that the polling likely was completed on Friday - so the results would not capture the end of the race. (In 2004, the Iowa results for Kerry were better than predicted.)

I think most of NH uses recountable paper ballots. (Not 100% sure though) I'd be very surprised if it was a problem with voting machines. I think people in NH are just stubborn.

They got Sununu elected, after all, by a phone jamming scheme that came from the top. I'm betting many of the Republicans switched to Independents prior to the election and when they went in to vote, they opted for a Democratic ballot and selected the person they want most to run against: Hillary Clinton. I've heard all kinds of chitchat about people voting in private and not voting for a black person despite saying they were for Obama and that's just baloney. As to "women voting for Hillary," here's another thing to consider. I am a woman and I was exit polled. The exit pollsters grab every other person, not each and every person. If a married couple goes to vote together, who's more likely to volunteer for the exit poll? The same person who sends Christmas cards, does the taxes and makes grocery lists. Usually the woman.

Some people dislike nosy pollsters. Some people don't want to hear how the day will end before it begins. Some people just like to screw things up.

Even if it's a major media piece.

:eyes: