CNN exit polls MATCHED the actual results of the New Hampshire Primary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

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

[MADem]

1. What???

That ruins the "conspiracy theory" argument!

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. While strengthening the "conspiracy theories" about the 2000 and 2004 elections

Where exit polling was significantly off from the reported results in several states, and all in states that went for Bush by a narrow margin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. You Have A Point

I won't debate that because no minds will be changed...

But if you assert that the exit polls and the actual voting were rigged there is no basis in the world for comparison...

It's like saying you saw your neighbor having sex with his dog...It's almost impossible to refute and almost impossible to prove-a garbage accusation...

[mod mom]

6. The polling was consistent for Republicans and John Edwards

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. The Exit Polls Were Consistent For All Eleven Or Twelve Candidates

~

[NoPasaran]

3. Nothing ruins a good conspiracy theory!

[fishwax]

5. I don't get why people are quite so shocked at the swing

I've seen dozens of people express disbelief at the sizable swing between the polls a few days ago and the results yesterday, but the swing towards Obama after the Iowa result was as dramatic. Clinton had already put a lot of work into New Hampshire, and she had had a solid and consistent lead for a long time in NH before Obama got the Iowa bump, so it's not that surprising that the sizable Iowa bump didn't translate fully on the day of the primary.

New Hampshire was hard fought and very close, as most people expected it to be.

[SheilaT]

8. Listen up everyone.

Exit polling, done correctly (which the major news organizations are quite good at) is phenomenally accurate. Where the MSM was completely despicable in 2000 and 2004 is their willingness to say there was something wrong with the exit polling and that the (rigged) results were correct.

Some time back, during the 1970's if my memory serves me, exit polling became so good that the networks were calling the races even before the polls closed. In 1980, for those of you too young to remember, the networks called the entire election for Reagan well before polls closed on the West Coast, and there were many stories of people simply not bothering to vote because of that. Which didn't affect the presidency, but probably impacted many other races (state assembly, mayoral, city councils, etc). By that year, they were at least waiting until polls closed in a particular state before calling the race (or races) in that state.

I recall seeing a program about the 1992 presidential election in November, and according to it by mid-morning they knew from the exit polling that he would definitely win, but sat on that information until after polls closed.

And for what my opinion is worth, the problem with pre-election polling has been building up for a decade or more. So many people have only cell phones that it skews the polling. Also, a lot of people simply refuse to speak to pollsters when they call, and they have trouble building the sample they want.

It's analogous to the problem of the 1936 poll by, what was the magazine? Oh, yeah (thank you Google) the Literary Digest. Read about it. We're in a similar era of needing to re-do polling methods.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. You Are Correct

One caveat...

In an extremely close race it's too dangerous to "call an election" on exit polls alone...

[SheilaT]

13. That may be true.

Except that my understanding of exit polls is that they will tend to reveal quite accurately what the final results are to be.

"Too close to call" I believe means that the two candidates (or top two as we saw last night in NH) are each within the margin of error of the polling. Exit polls, done correctly, don't simply sample some of the voters as they leave the polls, but target specific precincts whose demographics are a perfect or nearly perfect microcosm of the election in question.

Which makes me wonder exactly why it took so long last night for the networks to finally call Clinton as the winner. I'm inclined to think it was because all their pre-polling, and all the common wisdom was saying Obama would win with a large margin, and they just couldn't quite believe the results as they were coming in.

Look at the confident (dare I say arrogant) predictions of a huge Obama win right here on DU in the days between Iowa and New Hampshire. I think what we were mainly seeing was a lot of group-think.

Personally, I hope the primary season lasts for as long as possible. I hope that even after Super Tuesday next month no one candidate has a lock on the nomination. I want at least the top three to remain out there, trying to convince us why we should vote for him or her in the end, and be obligated to meet with more average Americans, to listen to us, to our concerns, and in the end be guided by what we really want, not by what they want us to want.

[Bitwit1234]

10. At 7:30 CST CNN said their exit polls show Hillary would get about

40% of the vote-- she got 39% and that Obama would get 36% and I think he got 37% so they were RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

[mhatrw]

11. Most polling places in NH had already been closed for 90 minutes at this point.

I am convinced that CNN adjusted its exit polling data to match the early returns.

[Zynx]

12. The early exit polls showed it tied.

I remember that distinctly.