Polls were way off. Does that mean undecideds broke strong for Clinton - an Anyone but Obama force?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

If Clinton comes within 5 all polls were way off. What the hell does it mean? An ABO contingent that knew they weren't going for Obama, were waiting to see about Edwards, then got scared and flocked to Clinton because of the MSM Obama hype?

[geek tragedy]

1. Tears. n/t

[abburdlen]

12. more of the media's response

The 'tears' were much less of an issue than the media's response.
I think a decent % of Clinton's vote tonight was a big F.U. to the bullshit

[Faygo Kid]

17. Yep. Jaw-dropping cynicism, and it worked. What a tactician.

Whatever it takes, I guess. I had nothing against Hillary until that appalling display. But it worked. I guess that's what counts. A Hail Mary pass right before the primary, and the damned thing worked.

We'll see how well that tactic holds up in the future. Not something you can use for every primary, I would guess (I could be wrong about that, given how extraordinarily well it worked).

[Occam Bandage]

2. Exit polls showed that people who decided in the last three days were evenly split.

[AX10]

3. She did very well among the party base...

and she had to have had a respectable showing among the indies.
If she had done poorly among the indies she would be F-A-R behind right now.

[Connie_Corleone]

4. The crocodile tears got the women over 40 to vote for her.

[Kahuna]

5. LOL! Yep. nt

[KennedyGuy]

8. Talk about crocodile tears..

geez. need a hankie?

[K Gardner]

9. Yeah, just heard she got most of the older people vote. So much for the young

people having a say in getting the status quo out

[LostinVA]

11. Very, very sexist comment

And more than a bit ageist, too.

[Connie_Corleone]

21. Take it up with the media. That's their words.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. the women I saw here seemed pissed about that and the men seemed sympathetic

I didn't think it was a big deal either way but Cafferty on CNN was blubbering over it

[Atman]

6. Yeah, keep asking yourself that..."What the hell does it mean?"

What the hell does it mean when all polls are off by so much. Polls which have been reliable and predictable for decades. Since Bush in 2000, polls have become worthless. Suddenly, if a formerly rock-solid poll doesn't match the results, it's the POLL'S FAULT, couldn't possibly be the GOP-controlled voting apparatus. And yet NO ONE, no one in the media ever raises this question.

.

[mod mom]

14. ding ding ding! (and not a little off and the differences in rally attendance-don't

believe your eyes.

[ccpup]

7. well, NH voters historically are reluctant to follow Iowa

and the margins indicating those who were "strongly" decided and were "highly" unlikely to change their minds were pretty high. Also, it'll be interesting to see how many Independents pulled off for McCain to stop the Romney campaign and the Huckabee jugernaut.

The race ain't over yet and Obama could still tighten it considerably. Politics, if anything, is ever changing.

[Ediacara]

10. MSNBC says those that decided in the last three days went for Obama and Clinton evenly

both getting 38%.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

13. interesting. wtf happened then

:shrug:

[Demeter]

15. NH Voters Don't Cooperate With Polls

It's not in their psychological profile. And the Independents are fiercely so.

[depakid]

18. No- it means cheap media polls are crap

They're used to try to influence public perception rather than reflect it.

Because of this- along with other factors, politics in the states ends up more like a American Idol- with a horse race bent, than a quasi-rational discussion on policies and leadership.

[Atman]

19. So is this how it's worked since all elections up until BushCo?

Just askin.

You say all the polls are crap, except for that they've all been dead-nuts accurate as long as I've been alive, and only turned unreliable since Bush 2000. Doesn't that make you stop and go "hmmmmmmm" for just a moment? If not, why not?

.

[depakid]

20. Bush is only part of a larger phenomenon

or phenomena, that I've come to collective denote as a "culture of lies."

Looking at the corporate media over the past 2 decades, one can see a steady erosion of respect for the notion of credibility and reason. Gore discusses this a little bit in his book, and Krugman's also commented about it from time to time.

Basically, ethics and responsibility have taken a leave of absence- to the point where people in America will say most anything (no matter whether it's patently false and disprovable or not). Having lived through it on the ground in the states and viewing it from abroad today (Australia) the contrasts couldn't be more glaring.

In some instances it's intentional- any grad student woth their salt in the sciences or social sciences should be able to tweak the methodology to produce a "scientific" result in keeping with the clients' wishes- or the "conventional wisdom. Then again, it's easy enough to do this unintentionally as well.

There are multiple problems with the usual polling techniques that render them less than valid (or even reliable) -much less predictive of outcomes that are often weeks (or months) away.

Doing proper research that actually reflects a populations attitudes, beliefs and values is difficult- tricky and expensive, which is the reason why campaigns spend a lot of money on internals- and keep the results of that research held very tightly to their chests....