Posted on 01/08/2008 7:32:20 PM PST by Aristotelian
In a stunning upset victory, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton beat Sen. Barack Obama in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary election in New Hampshire.
No sign of Huma tonight.
It is not possible for this many super careful professional pollsters who polled right up to the last minute to be this wrong. This is 20% of error. This is insane.
Something is very much amiss.
From The Corner over on NRO-
Campaign’s Internal Tracks
Russert just said that Obama’s had him up 14, and Clinton’s had him up 11. Incredible...
He has to win South Carolina, then win at least a few states on February 5th.
At this point, his best hope is that Huckabee could make a major mistake.
and that right is greatly respected.
But i think voting is a small showing of respect to those veterans who have died making sure we have the right to vote.
We won’t get the perfect candidate for everyone, but between a choice of two, we should pick the lesser unappealing one, and then politically beat them to submission if faulty legislation is introduced.
The only possible explanation is the Wilder Effect. I see no way the votes could swing that much unless people were flat out lying.
got any links for me to go read up on that?
I understand your premise, but I have some reservations. Let me see if I get it. A voter in Iowa is asked whom he favors by a pollster. He wants to look open-minded, so he says he is going to vote for Obama. Then, when he goes to caucus, he actually does declare for Obama. But why? Because he told a pollster he would? Will the pollster know whom the voter ultimately chose? Or, are you saying that, irrespective of polls, voters in an open caucus are more likely to vote for a black candidate so they will appear to be pro-diversity? Finally, (sorry about all the questions, but I was shocked and confused by the results tonight, and you've come the closest to explaining it) do we take all the polls in the remaining states, the vast majority of which are by secret ballot, and subtract x number of votes from what the polls show due to this effect? And, if you know about it, why didn't the pollsters know about it and adjust their results accordingly?
>>
From The Corner over on NRO-
Campaign’s Internal Tracks
Russert just said that Obama’s had him up 14, and Clinton’s had him up 11. Incredible...
>>
It can’t happen.
And you can expect most of the Clinton campaign to be astonished and delighted because whatever was perpetrated could only be known to a very tiny few. Too many and someone gets a case of conscience.
It can’t happen. You can’t get 18% errors when pollsters kept sampling EVEN LAST NIGHT. They would have seen the impact of the crying. They would have seen any last second surge. And the racism Wilder effect? I can see 6% on that. I can’t see 15-20%.
Something is SERIOUSLY amiss in this result. It is simply not possible and every pollster in the country knows it.
Ohh...I wouldnt say that...
And McLame....don’t get me started...I guess his extra time there instead of wasting time in Iowa paid off...
Dem on Dem voter fraud? Is that even legal?
Not necessarily. A high turnout boosts one side or the other on the McCain/Romney and Obama/Clinton races, because the folks who weren't following this race last year are just now getting drawn in. The voters for the lower-polling candidates are more likely to be committed for a while now, so those numbers are less volatile.
I haven't drilled down to see if the polls were close (within the margin of error) on the percentages for the second-tier candidates; they got the rankings right, but I don't know how close they were on the numbers, and I'm not up to crunching that at this hour.
If the top two in each party drew more voters than expected, that would lower -- on a percentage basis -- the vote for all the others. But it wouldn't necessarily change their order.
Didn’t you get the MSM Memo on this??
Only EVIL REPUBLICANS steal elections, no matter how many Democrats go to jail for voter fraud...
Get with the program, dude.
Besides, this is the LAST you’re ever going to hear about these “irregularities” anyway.
“Or, are you saying that, irrespective of polls, voters in an open caucus are more likely to vote for a black candidate so they will appear to be pro-diversity?”
That sounds right. They are with their neighbors at the caucus, and need to keep up appearances, just as they do with a pollster.
Actually, as soon as Fox News reported an unexpectedly high voter rate by the Dems, I suspected someone might be cheating (most likely Hillary.)
Perhaps Obama is not so suspicious.
What, aren't you upset?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.