I’m not saying this happened, but I’m looking for answers as to why the New Hampshire voting results were so different from what alllll the experts promised would happen.
Why would the pollsters say Hillary would lose by double digits?
Maybe they were gambling on the weather.
If Tuesday had been freezing with high winds and heavy snow,
Hillary’s people might have looked at the unanimous polls and say,
“Looks like she’s going to lose anyway, so why should we bother to
get out in the snow and maybe fall and break something for a lost cause?”
I’m not saying this happened for sure, but when something happens that’s
important, unexpected AND unexplained, you may want to look at things
like a homicide cop looks at a crime scene: Don’t take anything for granted
and expect the bad guys to lie about their involvement.
Something caused the unexpected to happen, and since the future
of the planet is involved, shouldn’t we find out what it was?
Jeez Bart,
Those polls were the best money could buy.
Probably that ozzie pervert Rupert Murdoch,
My gut tells me that the idea was to keep the Hillary voters at home by demoralising them.
In other words the usual election year courtesy of the GOP and the 2000 year dead demi-god party.
SKAAL!
Comment by Rainlander — January 10, 2008 @ 3:53 am
The real laugh is that most of the polls taken before Iowa were close to the election results. Go figure.
Comment by greyhawk — January 10, 2008 @ 5:13 am
The corporate media tried to take Clinton down and they got sloppy. There is no conspiracy here, just some fuzzy math.
Here are the averaged NH poll numbers:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html#polls
Obama-38 Clinton-30 Edwards-18
Obama had an average 8% lead, sometimes less, with 8% of the voters still undecided. In the final result Obama and Edwards both lost 1% each while Clinton picked up the undecideds. Pick your favorite theory why.
Final Result: Obama-37 Clinton-39 Edwards-17
Comment by Danger Bear — January 10, 2008 @ 6:05 am
I can’t tell you why the poll numbers were off so much but I can tell you what I saw. I spent the day holding Hillary signs at our polling location in Derry NH. You get a feel for how things are going and it looked good all day. We use these old optical scanners in Derry and I know the head of elections personally; no shenanigans. In one of the largest NH towns we beat Obama 2,387 to 1,632.
We also went to the after party and shook hands with everyone. Bill looked exhausted. My wife chatted with Chelsea for a while; nice kid.
Comment by Fenway — January 10, 2008 @ 7:15 am
People! Bart didn’t ask for speculation, he asked for investigation. I agree. strongly.
Bart if weather had been a factor both sets of polls would have been off, I do believe. I still think it may have been cheating or tears.
Grim
Comment by grimgold — January 10, 2008 @ 10:43 am
How about masterful campaigning by Clinton? Could that be the reason?
Just out of curiousity what were the names of those two guys who slipped signs past the Secret Service and were able to pull them out before the SS could react? Has anyone heard?
Comment by greyhawk — January 10, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Hawk, does the “masterful campaigning” include almost tears, or was that for real?
Comment by grimgold — January 10, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Could have been either. After all she got a lot of sympathy from that.
Comment by greyhawk — January 10, 2008 @ 11:49 am
What have we got besides speculation? I told you what I saw at the polls and I can’t imagine anything getting past that crew. Derry is always one of the last towns to report. I’ve sat there watching them count multiple times and they’re serious.
Speaking of speculation here’s one of mine. Dean bombed out in Iowa because his honeymoon was over and people started getting nervous that he might not be able to handle the job. When the NH Democrats saw what looked like an Obama lock they started second guessing. Sure they like him but is he really strong enough to be President?
Comment by Fenway — January 10, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Your Dean bombed out because he pointed at that fellow and told him to sit down and let him answer the question – he almost told him to sit down and shut up.
That’s what did it, not his “EEEEOOOOOUUUUUHHHAAAAAA” or anything else.
Comment by grimgold — January 10, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Grim are you sure you were watching the same election cycle the rest of us were in 2004. Dean was on fire but as Fenway mentioned when push came to shove people became concerned that Dean couldnt handle the job. Obama is a lightweight in many areas and when people took a hard look at him beyond the pie in the sky rhetoric they didn’t see a president.
Comment by N — January 10, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Okay, let me say I apologize for suggesting that the two neanderthals might be plants. Bart’s buddy Robert Parry has their names and links them to a radio show. (Where’s the FCC at on this one?)
http://consortiumnews.com/2008/010908.html
Comment by greyhawk — January 10, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
So Clinton Acts all choked up to get the sympathy vote, hires two people to act like idiots for the women vote, and then steals the rest in an amazing vote fixing scheme that even Bush couldn’t pull off. She is amazing! No wonder I want her to be President.
Comment by Fenway — January 10, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
It was a perfect storm. A combination of many things including Bill Clinton’s rant on the Obama fairy tale.
Comment by buzzchilly — January 10, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Ha, my thoughts exactly Fenway.
My personal speculation is that the media had their “Clinton Goes Down in Flames” and “Hillary Cheats” scripts written weeks ago.
Comment by Danger Bear — January 10, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
N, you could be right, however the Main Scream Media to this day blames Dean’s failure on his scream. They are wrong.
Bear, the Media wants a close contest – better ratings. I think they even cherry-pick polls toward that end. “Clinton cheating” would help prop up O after NH, keeping the heat on both.
Buzzchilly, I’m inclined to agree with you.
Comment by grimgold — January 10, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Just want to tip my hat to you Bart. I know that Hillary is your candidate, yet you are still willing to be skeptical about her victory. Here’s to you for being fair-minded.
Alex
Comment by alex — January 10, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Well, Bev Harris has weighed in:
http://www.mediatakeout.com/20885/conspiracy_new_reports_suggest_that_hillary_may_have_actually_lost_the_new_hampshire_primary.html
Comment by captmathman — January 10, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
And now it begins…
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080110006236&newsLang=en
Lose a Kucinich, Gain a Mile.
Comment by jairstokes — January 11, 2008 @ 1:28 am
It’s hard to say what happened; some in the Big Media have speculated that, because the weather was nice, more older people came out to vote, and they’re big Hillary supporters. I also think that a lot of the college kids who were hot for Obama probably saw the polls and projections — in one he was 15 points ahead — got stoned at the dorm and figured he was so far ahead they didn’t have to bother to vote.
It’d be nice if there was an investigation, but I won’t hold my breath — her victory is now yesterday’s news to the BM, and the NH Dems don’t seem to care.
Bart, Obama may be crashing in flames soon, leaving a clear path to Hill — he was just endorsed by Losin’ John Kerry yesterday, a bad omen and probably the kiss of death for Barack.
Comment by RS Janes — January 11, 2008 @ 10:45 am