Your premise is wrong: the polls missed only the Dim standings in New Hampshire; probably, as Rush analyzed, because those Dims polled didn't want to appear to oppose the only minority candidate.
You have touched on what I think has been going on and will get worse. Many people - especially of the lib class - do not want to be seen as racists or sexist. Consequently they lie about their position so as not to be seen a certain way. INHO this is one of the things that causes them to be completely confused and incoherent on a position. Remember Jesse Jackson’s initial success as a presidential candidate? I think that was because many did not want to “appear” to be racist. In this race those simpletons are faced with sexism or racism and I bet it is tearing their pea brains apart. My current worst nightmare is Hillary and Obama get on the same ticket. These people will than vote for that so they can “feel” good about it.
That’s pretty much what another freeper said, and where I got this paragraph for my post, which you evidently didn’t read:
For the Republican side, half right is more than half wrong when you’re relying on the data to exclude someone from the process of democracy. And if they were wrong, how do we know they were right on the republican side? The prevailing assumption should be that they need to PROVE their data is reliable, but by excluding a candidate that could have done well in that state if he had access to the media, they AFFECTED THE OUTCOME.