New Hampshire

[Dr. Shane]

Clinton gets her confidence back... Oprah can't be happy.

McCain... The only thing he has against him is his age. A McCain v. Clinton race would be an interesting one.

[Bravus]

I don't know how I feel about McCain. Used to think he was a Repub with integrity who was willing to stand up to his party for what was right. And he's the only one steadfastly against torture (probably because he's the only one who's experienced it). But he has done a fair bit of pandering lately, which worries me. Still, my motto for the Republican nomination is ABG - Anyone But Giuliani.

Speaking of which, wonder whether he regrets not campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Guess Feb 5 is the big day...

[lazarus]

Just listening to the Obama concession speech. He's struggling.

My prediction is that the nomination is Clinton's to lose after tonight.

[lazarus]

"I found my own voice" says Hillary in her victory speech.

She's softer, calmer, more "touchy-feely". I think were gonna see a new Hillary. This is gong to be fun!

[Woody]

That was only for while she was losing. Once winning ... she will find no reason to behave.

[Amelia]

Quote:

This is gong to be fun!

Or it will be the Gong Show. hehe

[lazarus]

[Amelia]

[Planey]

Who are you calling a cow, Melia?

Is it because much of what they say closely resembles bovine excreta?

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

I have been too busy to post anything today. Last night I was really thinking about how far off the polls were in New Hampshire. I took business statistics in college and understand how polling is done. Honestly, I have never seen polls off at all since I finished college. In the early years of polling they were off. The Dewey-Trueman presidential campaign is the classic example. But polls will give a margin of error and are nearly always within that margin of error or very close to it. In New Hampshire ALL THE POLLS were wrong. That itself is the biggest story of this primary. The big question is WHY? I have not heard any accusations of vote rigging yet but then I have been so busy today I haven't listened to the news either.

[Bravus]

Not sure - one explanation I read (which I'm not advocating) was that a bunch of people were so offended by the media's early and gleeful writing off of HIllary that they voted for her in reaction to that.

[Neil D]

Rumor has it that Hillary became a bit teary eyed when answering a question the day before the primary. The tears were an honest reaction to the question " How do you hold up? Why are you doing this?" and she gave an honest answer, one from the gut...no polls were taken after that Q & A session.... and those wishy washy New Hampshire-ites, especially the women, went and changed thier votes.....

[Dr. Shane]

Pollsters normally take that all into account by determining likely voters and undecided. When pollsters lose their credibility they lose everything because without credibility they have nothing and are completely irrelevant.

If a candidate has enough money they can move voters around and bring voters in so as to manipulate the vote. When I lived in Minnesota, a Democratic candidate in a northern Minnesota town received more votes in the town than the population. That raised a red flag. A few years ago here in the county in Texas where I live, an audit of an election showed over 700 dead people had voted. What it takes is a lot of money and organization for these things to happen.

I worked as an election judge one year and we had a guy that came in about every half-hour with a mentally retarded person. The law allows two in the voting booth if the person voting requests help. So every mentally retarded person this guy brought in would ask him for help and he would go into the voting booth with them. He must have voted a dozen times that day and I am sure there were others like him throughout the county.

[Neil D]

Quote:

If a candidate has enough money they can move voters around and bring voters in so as to manipulate the vote. When I lived in Minnesota, a Democratic candidate in a northern Minnesota town received more votes in the town than the population. That raised a red flag. A few years ago here in the county in Texas where I live, an audit of an election showed over 700 dead people had voted. What it takes is a lot of money and organization for these things to happen.

Alright, Shane! The american election process shows that there is a lot of fraud on the local level and all it takes is money to change a double digit lead to a close race or to win....American inginuety in the works....Some how, while this may happen in an occasional county, I doubt that it works in all counties accross the states...

pessimest!

[Dr. Shane]

Since both sides do it... I have always hoped the corruption on one side would balance out the corruption on the other. It doesn't normally make a difference in national elections but in local elections it can cause a candidate to win.

The amazing things is that the polls had Obama ahead by what? 12 to 15 points and he lost by what? 5 or 7 points. That means the polls were about 15 to 20 points off! That is hard to explain.

[Neil D]

Since both sides do it... I have always hoped the corruption on one side would balance out the corruption on the other. It doesn't normally make a difference in national elections but in local elections it can cause a candidate to win.

The amazing things is that the polls had Obama ahead by what? 12 to 15 points and he lost by what? 5 or 7 points. That means the polls were about 15 to 20 points off! That is hard to explain.

First paragraph shows a sad pessimism that I refuse to believe happened in every county in every state. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, it just means that, unlike your implication, it don't happen every where all the time. I would like to believe that it isn't about MONEY all the time...

As for the polls being so far off, I have explained it. Hillary had an emotional vunerable moment in front of the cameras and the news people showed it. They interpreted it as the begining of the decline of Hillary...instead, the women of New Hampsure identified with her passion and her determination mixed with her vulnerablity....and thought to give her that chance that she wanted.

And with your pessismism, you will write it off and make some C and B story that shows that the polls were totally off..They were NOT off....they didn't do a poll after 1 pm the day before the polls when she had her vulnerable moment. The media showed it on the main news thinking that Hillary was going to loose...when it showed her passion and she felt she KNEW what to do to fix the country. It moved the people, especially the women.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't believe that voting corruption is so wide spread that it is in every county in the country. In fact, it is normally only done by candidates that have the money to fund a well, refined political machine.

Quote:

Hillary had an emotional venerable moment in front of the cameras and the news people showed it.

That doesn't explain the polls being so far off. I have heard that explanation before but for those familiar with how polls are done, that explanation is pretty weak.