Why were the polls wrong again? Polls are getting it wrong more and more

[rainy]

especially when machines count the vote. Did anyone note that in the caucuses the polls were more close to accurate. But, when the machines count the paper ballots there is more wide spread errors in the results of polls and actual votes. I think that this election is already rigged just like all the rest since 2000. With information so easily spread the "powers that be" had to come up with a better way to beat the people than the usual propaganda and lies, so they began to privatize the voting machines so they could control them. Now they will keep their power. They know a republican cannot win because they have screwed up too badly and the Dems are going to win in a too big number to steal. However, since the illusion of us picking has to be maintained Hillary, the corporate princess, will keep them in power and nothing will change. She is the chosen one. Remember how Kerry was not winning much until they got into the rigged states, then, all of a sudden he took off. Remember his Skull and Bones connection? Doesn't Hillary have a Skull and bones connection through her husband? I think we the people haven't picked a president in a long time. And, unless things change we never will again.

When ever a populist rises up they destroy them or rob them of their votes. If that fails they just kill them. A populist will not be allowed to win. Look at how Edwards is ignored. Look at how the polls got NH wrong for Obama. I think someone better go over all those paper ballots and count them by hand. We better check the people count against number of votes counted as well.

So much for our democracy.

[rinsd]

1. Skull and bones?

:rofl:

[Missy M]

2. It gets stranger by the minute on here.....

:rofl:

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. One simple reason, and a follow-up consideration

Universally, pollsters exclude those who are still undecided. By all counts, that was a very sizable group of New Hampshire voters. As a result, all of the pre-voting polls are inherently inaccurate by a sizable margin.

The follow-up consideration is to look at the exit polls conducted as people left the polling places. From everything I've heard, the exit polls matched the canvassed results within a few votes (unlike General Election polls conducted in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races.) Based on the very close match between the exit polls and the published results, I have high confidence that the primary was not rigged.

[tritsofme]

4. Pre-election polls are usually pretty good, exit polls have been crap lately

The opposite seems to true this time around.

However as noted above, in their final projections most pollsters did not allocate the undecided voters, which seem to have broke hard to Hillary.

[pnwmom]

10. Exit polls, historically, are far more accurate than other polls.

The fact that they were so far off in 2004 is one of the most serious signs of election tampering.

[elocs]

5. We really need to get past this where when things don't go as expected

then obviously there was some kind of cheating going on. Sometimes things are exactly as they seem.

I work nights, so I just got up and have not seen a lot about the results, but I did hear some sound bites this morning on NPR from a couple of women. It seemed like they had been excited by Obama, but when push came to shove that they were feminists and just felt like they had to support Clinton.

There are really not that many actual votes in NH, so relatively small numerical changes can result in seemingly larger percentage changes. I think that this could explain how the polls were so wrong and that there were enough people who had a last minute change of heart to cause it to happen.

Everytime you lose or elections don't turn out as you want does not mean it is some kind of vast conspiracy to steal the election.

[Stewie]

6. Here's why.

1) People are ditching their landline phones for cell.
2) Those with landlines are blocking their numbers or now have caller ID and are no longer picking it up when it rings.

and

3) There was 80 PERCENT FREAKING TURNOUT!!!!! No poll modeling predicted that.

And it's not like pollsters have been doing studies for the last 10 years to figure out why they're getting it wrong more often.

But no, it's easier to just blame "the corporations" and "Skull and Bones" and claim every single person who programmed every single machine are all part of a shadowy conspiracy and the data gleaned from outdated polling methods using flawed samples that didn't predict massive turnout is more accurate than the actual vote counts.

[LaPera]

7. I wonder if your media is attempting to control you? Nah, they wouldn't do that....

Just keep watching TV....they will give you the truth and only the truth....No such thing as conspiracies, just believe the official government reports and the media and you'll be another good informed robot!

[Kahuna]

8. They weren't wrong. There were no polls that took into account the events

on election eve and election day that swung the election to Hillary.

[pnwmom]

9. The polls weren't taken the day before the election, when HRC was getting

piled on by the media, and women could judge for themselves whether HRC was in "tears" or not.

Also, the polls couldn't force any of those new voters or independents to actually go and vote. Not as many showed up for Obama as had been predicted. Maybe the campaign or his supporters got a little over-confident.