http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530
PLEASE GO DIRECTLY TO LINK SINCE THERE ARE GRAPHS AND CHARTS !!

NH Primary: Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama
Other Pre-Election Numbers, For Republicans and Rest of Dems, Nearly Dead on the Money...


I'm not sure why Obama would have conceded so soon, given the virtually inexplicable turn of events in New Hampshire tonight.

What's going on here? Before proceeding, I recommend you read the third section of the post I just ran an hour or so ago, concerning the way the ballots are counted in New Hampshire, largely on Diebold optical-scan voting systems, wholly controlled and programmed by a very very bad company named LHS Associates.

Those Diebold op-scan machines are the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy. See the previous report, as I recommend, which also includes a video of that hack, and footage of the guy who runs LHS Associates.

That said, the the pre-election pollster's numbers (NOTE: that's not Exit Polls, but Pre-Election Polls!) were dead-on, for the most part, on the Republican side, as well as on the Democratic side. Except in the do-or-die (for Hillary) Clinton v. Obama race. I'm watching MSNBC right now, and they all seem to agree that the results, for the moment, defy explanation.

snip
As you'll note, the numbers in Zogby's latest polls, for all but Clinton and Obama, seem to have been dead-on the money for both the Republicans and Democrats. Edwards, for example, was polled at 17% in Zogby's poll, and he received exactly 17% in the MSNB numbers, with 63% of precincts reporting. So are we to believe that only those voters who preferred Obama previously, decided to change to Hillary at the last minute? I suppose so.

This election was regarded as do-or-die for Clinton, after most in the media had already written her off at her "thumpin'" in Iowa. But Tim Russert just agreed with Brokaw and Matthews, that "this was the most stunning upset in the history of politics."

They are already grasping for reasons that this happened: The crying; she found her voice; the woman turned out; oldline Dems showed up, etc. All reminiscent, if you ask me, of "the evangelicals who turned out at the very last minute to vote for Bush in 2004" as the Exit Poll apologists wrote what would become conventional wisdom at the time. (Where did they get that info? The Exit Polls, they'll tell you. The same ones that they will also tell you were wildly wrong on every other count, apparently.)

Olbermann just called it, "a Titanic upset victory" for Clinton.

So, with another nod to the third section of the article I posted earlier here tonight, what's going on here?

While I have no evidence at this time --- let me repeat, no evidence at this time --- of chicanery, what we do know is that chicanery, with this particular voting system, is not particularly difficult. Particularly when one private --- and a less than respectable one at that, as I detailed in the previous post --- runs the entire process.

I should also note that some 40% of New Hampshire's precincts are hand-counted, which equals about 25% of the votes. I've just spoken to Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org who seems to share my concern, as have other folks who follow this sort of thing. Harris noted that it will be interesting to compare numbers of the hand-counted precincts with those counted on the hackable Diebold op-scan systems.

If I was Barack Obama, I'd certainly not have conceded this election this quickly. I'm not quite sure what he was thinking. And as far as offering an indication of whether he understands how these systems work, and the necessity of making sure that votes are counted, and counted accurately, it does not offer a great deal of confidence at this hour.

I'm trying to get in touch with his campaign, to let them know of these concerns. I hope you'll feel free to let them know as well, if any of you happen to be in touch with them, or a part of the campaign. I will, of course, be happy to discuss these concerns with them if they wish to call.

As mentioned, the numbers referred to above are not Exit Polls. They are Pre-Election Polls which are far less reliable than Exit Polls. So, if anybody knows where any decent Exit Polling data is, we'd appreciate it if you linked it in comments below...

UPDATE 9:18pm PT: This AP report includes information, said to be based on data from the Exit Polls. It indicates that the independents in NH, who may vote in either the R or D primary, voted mostly D, and were breaking for Obama. AP claims, however, that the same data show that Clinton's strength with woman "offset that"...

Early exit poll data indicated six in 10 independents opted for the Democratic contest and Obama led among them, but Clinton's advantage among women offset that.
...
The results are from exit polls Tuesday in 50 precincts around New Hampshire for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. The Democratic primary survey interviewed 1,800 voters, the Republican primary poll 1,301. The sampling error margin was plus or minus 4 percentage points for each exit poll.
Note: the Exit Pollsters used here were Mitofsky/Edison, the same ones who ran the infamous Exits in 2004 showing that, in state after state, Kerry should have one. They also later said their own polling was completely wrong (which is disputed strongly by statistics experts such as U. of Pennsylvania Prof. Steven F. Freeman Ph.D.) So, it's lovely that AP and the TV nets hired them again...

UPDATE 9:40pm PT: While the talking heads are trying to figure out what happened here on MSNBC, Eugene (?????, sorry, don't know his last name), while paging through a stack of papers, said to be Exit Poll data, just said: "Of those who made up their mind in the last three days, there was a slight favoring for Obama. If there was a huge difference in a move to Hillary, in the last three days, it doesn't seem to be reflected in the Exit Polling."

UPDATE 9:48pm PT: Olbermann repeated what Russert had said earlier, that Obama's internal polls showed him winning by 14%, Clinton's internal polls had Obama winning by 11%.

The effect of Obama being an African-American, the so-called "Bradley Effect", is now being discussed as the newest "reason" to explain the numbers. Though it's noted that it didn't effect Harold Ford in TN in '06, or even Obama in Iowa just five days ago.

When turn-out is so much larger than usual, as it is in this instance, the predictive models of who will vote that determine poll results are quite likely to be off the mark by a considerable margin.When turn-out is so much larger than usual, as it is in this instance, the predictive models of who will vote that determine poll results are quite likely to be off the mark by a considerable margin.

to skew the polls on all the Republicans, Edwards, Richardson, etc. JUST Clinton Obama. Surely you find that odd, don't you?

Republican turn-out was not large.

Few people cared much about the down-ticket entries: the interest was concentrated on the head-liners.

Then you don't have to shoot him.

Hillary knew she lost.

The average of every major poll don't lie.

Blaming voting machines seems to be a convenient way to explain away a loss. The primary numbers are starting to show a huge turnout and if there was a surprise it was McCain's win...and it may have come at Obama's expense. The corporate media spent the last three days with the "Hillary is dead" mantra and all but predicted Obama would win it with triple digits. Many people (independents) saw the bigger dog fight in the GOOP and their vote totals reflect it. Also credit Clinton's organization for getting their vote out...a lot better than they did last week in Iowa. If anything, this victory shows how important organization and ground game is, not the media expectations game.

At least a dozen threads from Obama supporters screaming that the vote was fixed. They cannot come to grips with the reality that is NH voters. It makes all of DU look foolish and it makes those people perpetuating this lie look like angry bitter little trolls who are having a tantrum because they came in second.

If these keeps up past today I'm just going to put every single person claiming the vote was rigged on permanent ignore.

about this (I am a Edwards supporter, BTW) and put the
energy toward trying to figure out why it makes no
sense. And like CindyW said, don't cry foul when
the same thing happens in the general.

In Ohio the EXIT polls DID NOT match the results. In NH the EXIT polls DID match the results.

Here is what happened: The pre-primary polls only poll likely voters. Likely Voters are those who have voted in previous primaries. But on election night a large number of registered Dems, who are considered unlikely voters and therefore not counted in the polls, came out and voted. Add in the NH is known for not making up it's mind until minutes before the primaries and you have a recipe for exactly what happened.

Congratulate the Clinton campaign workers for a job well done.

There is no outrage, just alot of frustration at people who refuse to listen to reason and logic.

conclusion than I thought. Take it a step further. To believe
what you are saying, you have to believe that 20,000 people,(extrapolated
from his pre-election night avg plus actual margin)
who were not going to vote (hence un-pre-polled), every last
one of them went to Hillary. To know one else. Not Obama. Not
Edwards. Obama got the votes he was expecting to get. You
also have to believe that Clinton's team knew nothing about
these 20,000 people since her own internals showed an 8 point
Obama lead going into the election. You also have to believe
that not one single one of them made up their mind at the last
minute because the spot on exits you mention showed last minute
deciders split evenly with a slight edge to O.

If you believe all of that could happen, so be it. I myself
find it hard to believe. I am an Edwards supporter. I am
also the first one who would congratulate a winner. But I
am also the first one who wants an explanation when something
appears fishy.

BTW, I never was referring to Ohio. I was referring to FL 04
and pre-election not exit. Kerry was up 3 and Bush "won" by
6. Plus last minute deciders broke to Kerry. That overnight
swing is inexplicable. Just like the overnight swing last
night of 7-15% not backed up with an exit that explained it.

I accuse no one - but by all accounts NH was do or die.

peace

It is not X number who were not going to vote- It is X number who did not vote in previous PRIMARIES. The polls only consider "likely voters" meaning those who regularly vote in primaries. There is a difference. This year they were mobilized and excited enough to get out and vote in the Primary. The Clinton Campaign did a very good job reaching them.

I truly don't understand the uproar about these votes. When Obama came in first in Iowa, there were a slew of anti-Obama posts. Now there is a "the vote was rigged" paranoia going on now.

This is what the primaries are about. I find it fascinating and exciting to watch the races. And then I come here and find it exasperating and annoying at all the negativity.

other than fudging with the rules about who is and isn't alowed to vote, Iowa was about an honest an election as you can come by because it was a Body Count, hands up in the air sort of thing.

NH is cloaked in the secrecy. Private companies that use trade secret laws to prevent proper oversight by representitives of the public. Private companies that prefer certain candidates over others for their many financial and other interests should not be counting votes in secret behind our backs.

or do you think that's all cool?

still think fishy is too strong.

I gave reasons in another thread, but I'm too lazy and just drunk enough not to feel like typing it all out. Here's the Cliff's Notes explanation:

1. Backlash for the "crying game"
2. Last minute undecideds

Try Occam's Razor out on that one and get back to me. :)

deciders split evenly (per CNN's exit). It would make sense if the last minute
deciders bent totally toward Clinton. That would explain it all - and I wouldn't
even be still up.

You're asking me to waste thirty-five years of hard work?! The cheek! :)

I hadn't heard that the late deciders broke even, but I'll take your word for it.

Still, I think that the 47-34 split in Hill's favor from women do the trick nicely. Wonder how women were breaking down, say, Friday?

my dear, it doesn't matter. The female split, whatever it was, should have been
factored into the last polls (all of them). If they weren't then, the number
of people who made up their mind at the poll who have been totally skewed toward HRC?
Does this make sense? Not drunk, but getting tired....

...due to the "crying" crap (as I suspect), I don't think it had time to show up any of the polls...until tonight.

women seeing her choke up said, "Screw Obama, I'm going with the choked up one" AND
I am going to lie about changing my mind at the polls to the exit pollers.

As a man, I am wholly unqualified to explain women. I can sometimes guess, but that's probably just luck. :)

the last polls. In Iowa, Obama took 33% of the women to Hillary's 30%. In NH, that figure was up to 47% for Clinton. That's the reason she won right there. Something like 58% of the voters were women.

And it points to easily hackable machines for me.

...your Occam's razor needs a good stropping. (Why do I even know that word? :) )

I have never heard of a situation like this where both campaigns' internal pollings were each wrong in exactly the same manner. And the internal pollings were consistent with multiple independent pollings.

IT sure looked like Eugene Robinson was grasping at straws trying to find anything that would explain the disparity between the pollings and the results tonight. He later said we don't know what happened.


"UPDATE 9:40pm PT: While the talking heads are trying to figure out what happened here on MSNBC, Eugene (?????, sorry, don't know his last name), while paging through a stack of papers, said to be Exit Poll data, just said: "Of those who made up their mind in the last three days, there was a slight favoring for Obama. If there was a huge difference in a move to Hillary, in the last three days, it doesn't seem to be reflected in the Exit Polling."

UPDATE 9:48pm PT: Olbermann repeated what Russert had said earlier, that Obama's internal polls showed him winning by 14%, Clinton's internal polls had Obama winning by 11%."

Who's Eugene? Is he from the exit pollers?

I can't wait to hear what Zoghby says. He's not going to like being SO "wrong" twice.

WaPo columnist

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/01/06/DI2008010601772.html

No fraud here. Just Democracy in action. People who normally don't vote in primaries and therefore aren't polled decided they were pissed off enough to get off the couch. Most were Democrats.

...to run against Hillary, and they know how to fix things in local elections.

But I know of 4 women around the country who switched votes in the last few days ONLY because of the way the men piled on the woman.

I note NONE of the calculations consider the outrage women feel when we see that. Not every woman, clearly, but a whole hell of a lot of us. I don't know why men discount that. Fear? Simple disbelief?

feeling sorry for her. She strikes me as tough as any man, maybe
even tougher. So much so, that I don't even think of her
as a woman - just as another candidate.

Run with it. I want those machines in landfill anyway.

Sid

I know he is the marketing manager, but who is he exactly?

anyone know





:shrug:

"This election was regarded as do-or-die for Clinton, after most in the media had already written her off at her "thumpin'" in Iowa. But Tim Russert just agreed with Brokaw and Matthews, that "this was the most stunning upset in the history of politics."

John Edwards, the invisible candidate:
While they may not have written Edwards off like they did Hillary, they sure made him seem INVISIBLE, the last few days.

to them. This is not uncommon at all

numbers were spot on.

since 1991. It's not all supporters you can do it with, but you can have a group of supporters do it multiple times, exit pollers don't actually see who votes and who doesn't vote when they walk in the polling station and there are ways to make sure the exit poller polls you.

Same with pre-election polling, there are ways to make sure you get polled more than others.

Republicans, and downstream Dems. Lying to the pollsters is the only
explanation for this huge variance -- 11.4% ! And we're not talking
about supporters here, we are talking about random poll respondents
(pre-election). Plus Obama and Clinton internals (which I assume
they wouldn't lie on) were both showing Obama winning big.

this is a cluster.

OK

and Hillary's internals had Obama winning

to help beat expectations. Or keep other candidates from working GOTV as hard as they need in a geographic area.

What purpose would that serve?

certain precincts they will move their GOTV efforts elsewhere costing them votes. Also if you have done something to "confuse" their voters as to the proper voting locations or confuse them about the right voter number on the ballot for their candidate, having a number of "votes" for them recorded into the exit poll can help prevent them from keeping up with a geographic area where you have caused the confusion. Remember every campaign has someone at the local media outlet to get the exit poll information through out election day.

but it's interesting strategy.

why, because the GOP really wants to run against Hillary. They seem to thinks its their best chance to keep a Republican in the WH. They have been planning it and engineering it, so why not skew the polling to fit the expectation. I just don't think the polling was honest and yes race might be a big part of it. I still hear that Obama Muslim BS not just on their side but on ours too. Well folks somehow the real people out their chose what they wanted not what was expected by the talking heads. If you still look at the numbers Democrats are getting out more votes than Rethugs and that says a lot.

company was skewing? AND the internals for Obama and Clinton? They were
showing Obama up big. Why would they skew their own polls?

question even they can't answer.

what happened is:

1. Obama's Internals were wrong
2. Hillary's Internals were wrong
3. ALL the major pollsters were wrong
4. 11% (8.3 - last Obama lead + her lead tonight) of the People changed their mind at the last minute - and lied about it to the exit pollers (since exit polls say late deciders split between O & H)
5. None of this affected the poll predictions on Edwards or a single republican.

Obama depends on independents and you have all these polls based off of "likely" voter stats and a media that pushes horse race momentum thinking.

Take a random poll, http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/NH/NHPZ080107.htm look at the breakdown... if we ever get specific stats on the exits we can compare, but if women went big for Clinton and independents split between McCain and Obama and the democrats turned out in larger-than-expected numbers (look at the Clinton/Obama stat just among democrats in that poll I linked) then it doesn't look all that strange to me.

Please let's be cautious and avoid trivializing the blatant fraud of 2000, 2002, and 2004.

<snip>

UPDATE 9:48pm PT: Olbermann repeated what Russert had said earlier, that Obama's internal polls showed him winning by 14%, Clinton's internal polls had Obama winning by 11%.

The effect of Obama being an African-American, the so-called "Bradley Effect", is now being discussed as the newest "reason" to explain the numbers. Though it's noted that it didn't effect Harold Ford in TN in '06, or even Obama in Iowa just five days ago.

<snip>

Link: From the OP

That, and when somebody said (paraphrasing), "Well why didn't the Bradley Effect happen in Iowa?"

Answer: "Iowa is a caucus state. You have to declare and stand publicly. In New Hampshire you go into a booth with the curtain closed."

God I hope this ain't true, because I lived through the Bradley effect here in "liberal" California. And I was so fucking ashamed of the state I love.

:mad:

Link: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-return-of-t.html

:shrug:

words they polled correctly (pre-election poll)!! It was ONLY Clinton's
poll vs. actual that was off.

This is huge because the only explanation now is that Clinton's team miraculously
found close to 20,000 unpolled voters. Even her own internals didn't register
them ! Quite a feat when no one else -- not Edwards, not Obama, not any
Republican found any unpolled voters and got them to the polls.

then maybe we deserve a Mitt Romney presidency!

As soon as Diebold's turn rolls around, the numbers are way off. And the CorpoMedia spins, spins, spins.
:puke:

Media? Yikes.

Please point to any unexplained abberation in Iowa

due to the basic inability to corrupt the count there.
Then 'Ha' yourself, babe. :eyes:

in the face of what happened last night IS A VERY HEALTHY THING, regardless of whom one's candidate is. I believe there is more to this story to surface than at the last moment a number of women felt sorry for Hillary and came out in droves to change the results of the polls. I am just not that politically naive.

Numerous people said if Hillary wanted to stay in the race, SHE HAD TO STOP the Barack phenomenon. And stop it she did. Miracle or mechanics? Cynical me, I am going to guess mechanics covered over by a very fishy sympathy story.

We'll see what lies ahead in the race, but I am keeping both eyes wide open.

nail on the head. Unpolled votes only accruing to her and no one else and a
a "do or die" scenario for anyone wanting her to remain viable.

and foul is being uttered???


You know how the polls are wrong? PEOPLE changed their minds in the voting booth. And in spite of the general disbelief around here, Hillary leads in National polls, which became true last night with the results in New Hampshire.


Maybe, just maybe, Obama spent so much time and effort in Iowa that he let New Hampshire slip? Who really knows. All that maters is we have a real race, and it IS between THREE candidates, not two (the King and Queen of the media).

What a fun ride it will be next month. Gnashing of teeth, bloodsport, skewering, wailing and flagellation. Oh boy.:sarcasm:

with it. No exit poll picked up any shift to Clinton whatsoever. In fact, the exit polls
had the last minute decider leaning slightly Obama. Also, she was the only one who had
this phenomenom happen to. (20k unpolled votes) All other candidates got exactly what they were expecting and what the pre-election polls expected. Every pre-election poll had her down. Her own internals had
her down by 8.

Now, be honest, if it was anyone else, would you not wonder what the hell happened?

stinks of sour grapes and reaching for straws.


As John Edwards so elegantly put it

THERE ARE 48 (FOURTY EIGHT) STATES TO GO.

'NUFF SAID. Get a life people IT'S A long way to Tipperary.

We're still stuck with goddamn fucking Bilbray, even though we had Diebolt and lots of irregularities in Duke Cunningscam's old district.

whole thing is center stage. Surely, there is someone in the MSM
that's smart enough to reach the same logical conclusion - that
there is an aberration.

Have you given up your career to save our democracy? No? Brad has.
Have you traveled across this country spotlighting the dangers of e-voting? No? Brad has.
Have you sacrificed nearly all to get integrity back in our voting systems? No? Brad has.

I find your whining about San Diego sanctimonious and piggish. If you feel not enough is being done about our stolen elections, you're right. But, instead of lambasting a TRUE patriot, you might instead get off your ass and join the fight for your country and your democracy.

of the Diebold machines. And real links that mean something, not just your imaginings.

because his own exit poll data showed he couldn't make up the difference. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

"I've just spoken to Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org "

nuff said.

I like Brad, but he's wrong on this one. Phone polling is not accurate. Exit polls are a much better indicator of what will happen, and they were right.

Explanation is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218

I am looking for documentation on the assertion that the Edison/Mitofsky exit polls are actually recalibrated based upon the actual reported vote totals. If this is the case, then these exit polls are useless as a vote-validation measure. The media generally uses them for the demographic break-down of the electorate, not vote validation anyway.

More later if I find anything. I've seen this assertion on DU and elsewhere but I have no idea if it's true. I do know that Edison/Mitofsky has refused to give his raw 2004 exit poll number to Congress. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy%2C_exit_polls see "Retrospective adjustment of exit poll data" section.)

If all else fails, it's Diebold! :rofl:

Only Obama can win? Now it's Die Bold? If you're feeling bad now...you have seen nothing yet! GO HILLARY!

have any control over Diebold machines or voting precincts - not sure - but don't believe Democrats would have flipped votes. And flipping is what would have had to happen.

The Repbulicans who control the game plan have the best motives and they benefit the most. They probably have a storage warehouse full of plans if Clinton wins the nomination (plus they have the Republican-lite DLC to ruin things for Democrats). Either Clinton or Obama will provide them with plenty of things to generate hate with their base. Keeping Edwards down is their side motive.

It is the 20k that Clinton got that she didn't even have in her internals.

It's going to be hard to reform the system, when we're claiming that every outcome we don't approve must just be a stolen election.

Do I think the Clinton camp stole NH? Not only no, not only hell no, but FUCK NO.

It never seemed right to see Bill Clinton cozy up to Poppy Bush after the 8 years of hyped-up, unnecessary hell Bill Clinton was put through because of Poppy Bush & Co. Whenever I'd see photos of the two together, always amicably posed, the only thing that crossed my mind is how they came to that amicable point. Were deals made between these two who (now obviously, with Clinton) aspire to continue running this country?

"Okay, Bill. I confess. We weren't too happy when you beat me fair & square back in '92, so we bought the media & brought in the new-fangled electronic voting machines owned by our guys. Look, it was the only way we could beat the Democrats in 2000 & 2004. I'm real sorry about how you were treated -- hell, if I didn't have the media in my deep pocket$, they would have revealed a few things about me. But if you want to be on the team, I have an idea you might like. I know Hillary has her eyes set on '08, & if you do ____, I can make sure Hillary gets not only the nomination, but the presidency itself. We owe you, but we're not going to let you have it if you don't do ____. Whaddya say, Bill?"

I refuse to believe that Edwards is not on top. Democrats, as hungry as they are for representation, don't vote against themselves.

Tim Russert just agreed with Brokaw and Matthews, that "this was the most stunning upset in the history of politics."

If JFK couldn't win he wouldn't have to be shot.

Like the powers that be are going to allow a black man populist to be the most powerful man in the world.

Ignorance is bliss.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Not only the upset of the century = but a miracle from on high. That
20k people, unknown to even Clinton, came out and every single last
one of them voted for Clinton. Defies all laws of probabability. And
every poll right for every other candidate but her. On what so happens
to have been touted as a do-or-die point. On a day that all reports
including her own internals showed an 8 pt margin for Obama.

Everyone here would likely be jumping up and down with their hair
on fire - if this was the opposition. But, because it is happening
on our turf, this miraculous result is just accepted with the
casual, "5 major polls" were all wrong.

in largely rural precincts not known for the young, more liberal voter who usually votes for him.

said that it was Dean country and Dartmouth would go Obama.

I was amazed that he didn't win more around Manchester and Nashua - that's were Hillary
scored big and coincidentally where the Diebold is.

I don't even if God told me the whole thing was legit - if I would believe it that the
whole thing was on the up and up. It is just too improbable. No one has convinced
me otherwise.

Perhaps respondents didn't want to tell pollsters that they liked Hillary. Lots of people hate Hillary. Wives could be afraid their husbands could find out about the Hillary vote. Women could have been shy about telling male pollsters about how they felt.

Hillary fans are used to keeping their politics secret. A significant portion of the population will chew anybody out who speaks up for Hillary. Hillary voters might have been used to hiding it and continued out of habit.

Far fetched? One thing to consider - The Hillary haters here all say, "I don't know a single person who is voting for Hillary." Yet the votes come.

our system 100% - that we have to just keep guess
why something so extraordinary happened which
would be easier if we knew the totals were
right.