The math... someone help me here...

[lala_rawraw]

I am confused (which is not unusual), but all the results I am seeing are matching with the polling, except for the Hillary/Obama race, then the numbers don't match at all. What am I missing here? By the way, I am not and have not publicly supported any candidate. I am just interested in fair elections. Is this math explainable? Did I miss some sort of surge in the polling?

[ccpup]

1. for one thing

the media ignored the 17% undecided number in most of the Polls and perhaps some of those peeled off to McCain.

[TwilightZone]

2. Undecideds, perhaps, or Independents.

According to a couple of reports, the undecideds were as high as 17%. If they went largely to Clinton, that could have made a significant difference.

The other possibility is that more Independents went to McCain than expected. That would draw from Obama.

[NMDemDist2]

3. 17% undecided which the MSM didn't mention in all their rah-rah n/t

[The Magistrate]

4. Poll Results, Ma'am, Depend On A 'Likely Voter' Screen

When turn-out is so much larger than usual, as it is in this instance, the predictive models of who will vote are quite likely to be off the mark by a considerable margin.

[Mass]

5. A lot of undecided breaking for Hillary, I think.

Many of these polls had more than 15 % undecided.

[Coexist]

6. you got me, lala, maybe all the voters that came out that they weren't expecting.

Can all people vote for any party in NH?

Here only Dems can vote for Dems and viseversa. Maybe independants skewed the #s???

[lala_rawraw]

14. well that is my point...

how can there be this surge, but the entire Republican side staying true to the polling numbers and all of the Dems, but two? can surges be this aligned toward only one person?

[Marrah_G]

It was more likely the registered Dems who made the difference

Many historically did not vote in the primaries and therefore were not counted in the polls.

[WillyT]

7. Yeah... BradBlog Is Wondering The SameThing

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2635128

:shrug:

[99th_Monkey]

8. For another thing, the folks that own voting machine companies were "depressed"

about Hillary's apparent "slump"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080108_conservative_right_c.htm

[Avalux]

9. I'm wondering the same thing. It's odd.

I have read that not all results are in; Obama's stronghold in southern NH haven't been counted yet. I have also read the percentage of undecideds wasn't taken into consideration. Still.....the numbers are way off from the polling.

[lala_rawraw]

16. right and if the undecideds suddenly showed up

then how does this account for everyone but one person matching the poll numbers? did every single undecided vote for that one person? it is possible, i just don't fully grasp it. but then again, i have been staring at Pakistan for two weeks, so what do I know.

[bleever]

10. This Larry Johnson post is relevant:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2635150

17% undecideds, and they broke almost evenly for HRC and Obama, despite the expectation Obama had big momentum after Iowa.

:shrug:

:hi:

[doublethink]

11. McCains EXIT polling results are true to form ....

the whole republican side line up. Not so on the democratic side so far. DRE's have no place in American politics. Peace.

[lala_rawraw]

12. ah, good to know... thank you all...

i have been so overwhelmed with work that I have quite literally missed these poll numbers it seems...

[Marrah_G]

13. This is why

When they poll they poll people who have voted in the primaries in the past. This time a huge number of Democrats came out to vote that had not voted in past primaries and many voted for Clinton. Enough to sway the vote.

[lala_rawraw]

17. how many is enough to close that kind of gap?

in such a short period of time? if indie voters are allowed to vote in NH, then who is to say how they actually voted? i am confusedicated:(

[MiniMe]

15. Hillary was up by 20 points until a few days ago

And she was up by that much for a long time. It all depends on who you poll. So its possible that the Obamamania was just a temporary skew in the polling.