Did Clinton's results match her EXIT polls? (Not pre-election polls, but the actual exit polls)

[Elspeth]

The voting machine fraud hypothesis needs a real disjunct between the exit polls and the reported results to be viable. Pre-election polls are not nearly as legitimate in making the case; people can change their minds on election day, and for all sorts of reasons. (It would be interesting to see what OP-Eds appeared in the local NH papers, for example.)

The real problem would be if the exit polls were way off. Then, you might really have a case.

[Mass]

1. It did. They were showing the two tied at 39 %, which is compatible with Clinton's small victory.

[Perry Logan]

2. ...otherwise known as Obama's big defeat.

[Elspeth]

43. It was actually a small defeat, and considering Clinton's lead in NH,

it was actually a victory. When you have small towns of say 100 people where one candidate leads another by two votes, you've yourself a real horse race.

[Elspeth]

5. Is there a link to the exit polls?

That might really help.

I am less worried about the pre-election polls because a lot can be done in a small state with a limited number of voters and lots of money in a short time.

The exit polls would have been a far different matter. Then, I would have been right there with the tinfoil hats.

[malaise]

40. They did and that is the truth

even for non-Hillary fans like me.
Add.

[Lyric]

3. Don't try to reason with the tinfoil hats

They see conspiracies whenever they don't get their way.

By the way, NICE username! Fantasy novels rock. :toast:

[robbedvoter]

4. yes, it did. CNN has a very detailed exit polls - demographics & everything

which matched the results.

[Elspeth]

6. Do you have a link to that?

?

[Mass]

8. Here

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM

[Elspeth]

13. Thanks! Something interesting about those results:

Those most angry at the Bush administration actually supported Hillary. Obama won the "dissatisfied with the Bush administration" vote.

[mondo joe]

21. But like the margins between the two are VERY slim.

Those who are angry: 39% Clinton, 34% Obama
Those who are dissatisfied: 39% Obama, 38% Clinton

There are other, more stand-out differences.

[Sancho]

7. I agree with your post.

Pre-election polls are pretty unreliable due to sampling error. Exit polls should be pretty close. That is one reason that we need to have a better exit poll for the final Presidential elections than we've had the last few elections.

[Elspeth]

10. They muddied the exit polling after Florida 2000. Remember we didn't have it at all in 2002.

A resounding silence on TV before actual results were in.

[Marrah_G]

9. Yes they did match

There is a VERY logical reason why what happened happened. The problem is the Obama supporters are in a rage right now and nothing you say is going to convince them a fix wasn't in.

[Elspeth]

11. If they matched, then the election fraud claims don't hold water

...

[Marrah_G]

14. I know

I'm getting pretty fed up at this point. People jump to conclusions without facts. They twist things to try and explain away their own loss. It is pathetic and it is sad.

[Blarch]

16. Kinda like the Edwards people blaming the media ?

[OzarkDem]

22. No, that one is legit

lack of media coverage does hurt a campaign and the news media is known to not cover candidates they don't like.

[Elspeth]

36. Yeah, Edwards has been getting shafted.

Someone should do a study of the coverage hours.

[Mass]

12. I'm an Obama supporter and do not believe that the election was fixed. It is a logical result in

a state where the establishment was largely behind Hillary Clinton and where the media have proclaimed that Obama would win by huge and idiotic margins. Some people on our side did not go and vote while the other side mobilized in a great way. And only in America can a 3 % victory by somebody who was the media über favorite as far as last week be seen as a defeat for the other candidate. A disappointment at best.

Hopefully, this will be a lesson for Obama and his people. You need to get the people out.

[Marrah_G]

15. Thank you- I agree

Perhaps it is just that people A) don't understand the difference between polls and exit polls and B) people just do not understand how the people of NH are.

[PVnRT]

17. Quit trying to inject logic into this

[Elspeth]

38. The pre-election polls were premature. Lots of people apparently decided the day OF the election.

That CAN happen.

[lateo]

18. This looks bad.

Hopefully Obama and Edwards will jump on this and find out what happened.

http://www.latimes.com/la-exitpoll-nh-graphic,0,7161708.htmlstory?coll=la-home-center

Could it be that Diebold and Hillary cheated?

[Marrah_G]

20. The exit polls matched the results- how does this "look bad"?

[Junkdrawer]

19. Yes. Nothing suspicious happened last night...

Move along...
Move along...
Move along...
Move along...
Move along...
Move along...

(bump)

Move along and celebrate our candidate's great victory!

[mondo joe]

23. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean the only explanation is something shady.

[moondust]

24. Right. NONE of those 10+ independent polls can be trusted to come close.

Shut 'em down. Pay no attention. All just hot air.

swallowhardandmoveon.org

[riqster]

25. Keep in mind, in the current paradigm, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a Kucinich backer and thus do not have a dog in the HRC/BHO fight. But the votes are tabulated in a black box, and as we all saw in 2004, the pre-election and exit poll numbers can be (and are) 'corrected' in order to make them plausible.

I am guessing that HRC pulled off an upset. Not surprising, she's done it before. She's smart, tough, and savvy.

But we should not HAVE TO GUESS. Our information should come to us from the election officials theselves, with a proper audit trail all the way through. Instead, it is processed by private vendors on proprietary equipment.

All of us are guessing.

[robbedvoter]

26. Exit polls said lots decided that very day. As for anectdotal evidence as to why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4004905&mesg_id=4006052
I'm thinking 57% women showed up for the same reason
also, see this for exit poll link & discussion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4006824
Personally, the exit polls are the only ones I trust.
Much as I am ready for dirty tricks in NH, I doubt they happen in the primaries.

[Elspeth]

37. Yes, making pre-election polls PREMATURE.

This is going to be a close race no matter who comes out on top at any given time.

[mcscajun]

27. Yes, they did.

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

[Marie26]

28. I just think it's funny

Were people questioning Obama's win in Iowa? No. But now that Clinton's won, of course it must be election fraud.

[tom_paine]

30. Iowa's caucus ballots were hand-counted, NH is a non-transparent Diebold State.

THAT is where the skepticism comes from, not which candidate won. My candidate isn't even in this e-voting issue, but the problem comes with non-transparent privatized voting.

It all takes place in the dark, beyond the reach of inspectors or the public or anyone.

Ultimately, that is the problem here. A lack of transparency in what should be highly transparent.

The fact that Diebold and other e-voting machines are not permittted to be inspected by state officials because they are "proprietary" while, oddly enough, a $5 video poker machine in Vegas gets inspected twice a year for glitches and somehow isn't "proprietary".

Combine that with the fact that suddenly it's Dewey vs. Truman every election suddenly once the voting "went dark" to the public and our designated representatives and you have a situation in which mistrust flourishes.

[Marie26]

31. Please see this thread: exit polls matched election results

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

Hillary won fair & square.

[tom_paine]

32. It doesn't matter who won, don't you get it? My candidate lost, no matter what.

I think that makes me as close to a disinterested observer as you can get around here.

My candidate got what was expected. I don't wish either Sens. Clinton or Obama to have won NH...but one of them clearly did.

So what? We are blinded by the "sour grapes" theory and bitching at each other about who's candidate is best, but there is another larger issue here, and we risk everything by being blinded to it by our bickering.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2640123

[Marie26]

33. Uh.. I thought that was the point?

You said that the voting system creates "mistrust" in the outcome. I pointed out that that mistrust is misguided in this case, as HRC won the election honestly. Now you're raising a completely different issue. I agree, privitized voting sucks. But it's just not smart to try to say or imply that HRC stole the election here, because it makes the real charges of election fraud seem just as meritless.

[tom_paine]

34. That's not the point. Few are saying HRC stole it herself, but perhaps it was stolen for her.

Who benefits from a long, drawn out and "bloody" Democratic primary?

Anyway, that's off my actual point, but I just wanted to present you with what I believe is the theory that most people are asserting, as opposed to "sour grapes" or "HRC stole it".

Mistrust may or may not be misguided in this case, but the point is that we are so in the dark and our System of Checks and Balances in the area of voting have fallen so far, that we lack the ability to determine whether or not it is so.

And that is poison in a supposedly free democratic-republic which relies upon cooperation among diverse elements to move forward and prosper.

Trustworthy, believable voting systems do not validate the winners so much as they validate the losers that they really, truly lost.

Look at Kenya for further proof of this, and for our potential future if transparent inspections and integrity are not restored to our voting system. (although we may just give in and accept it, like the 1930s Germans)

[Elspeth]

42. I am sorry about Edwards. After Iowa, I thought he'd have more bounce than he did.

..

[Tarc]

29. keep in mind that the "exit polls" are not all-inclusive

I live in one of the larger college towns of the state, and there was no exit polling done here at all.

[Elspeth]

41. The pre-election polls are even less inclusive.

THey are often telephone surveys, and if I don't want to do the survey, I can hang up on the person.

New Hampshire was a story about a dead heat between CLinton and Obama. CLinton won by a razor thin margin. That happens in a dead heat when it's not a tie.

[Junkdrawer]

35. The announced job of exit polls is to analyze voter trends...

It would make perfect sense, then, for the polls to be "corrected" by actual results.

This would, of course, make them useless for verifying the legitimacy of the official results.

[Elspeth]

39. Yes, they do represent voter trends--and a lot more accurately than pre-election polls

The results of the exit polls showed Obama and CLinton in a dead heat. On NPR, there were various reports from small towns where CLinton was winning by 2 or 3 votes. THAT is a dead heat. Clinton won in the margin of error.