Well , let's just ask the pollsters - How could all the pre-election polling be so wrong?

Do they have any meaning/purpose whatsoever except to energize/demoralize people? Should it matter to anyone what someone else thinks?

Feel free to answer.

Independents. McCain did very well and probably pulled more independents than expected. Obama's support included a significant chunk of independents and his numbers relied on them more than Hillary's.

Undecideds. One report indicated that the undecideds were as high as 17% in the polls. If the majority of them went to Hillary, that would significantly change the outcome.

Last-minute decision-making. Reports were that something like 40% of voters made up their minds in the final three days. The polls would be unable to fully account for that, especially people who decided just today.

Or, any combination of the above.

2000 and then in 2002 and then in 2004. Geez. Florida was polling for Gore and he started leading but suddenly it flips for Bush. Ohio was polling for Kerry and suddenly flipped around for Bush....it all stinks so bad.

She wins by 3 points and her own polls had her down by 11.

I think you have to expect the unexpected when you allow Republicans and independents to vote in Democratic primaries because you never know until it actually happens which groups are going to show up the strongest.

Plus I do think that yesterday's Hillary bashing over the tears that really weren't tears but simply a somewhat emotional statement by a tired candidate who sounded totally sincere to me may have pissed off a lot of women who were on the fence. Hey, I'm an Edwards supporter but I thought that crap was way out of line.

and THEY have failed miserably. The attacks will start again tomorrow and these bastards must be fought tooth and nail to the finish.

If you don't realize the Corporate Media Cartel has been creaming its pants over the prospect of Hillary as the Democratic nominee, you're playing "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil."

Otherwise, why would the CMC spend virtually every moment over the past year (from HRC's announcement to the afternoon of the Iowa caucuses) proclaiming her the "inevitable" nominee?

If you want to know the real problem with elections in this country listen to CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS for awhile. Nearly every word that comes out of their mouths is an opinion, and a baseless one at that. They love sitting around guessing and trying their damndest to influence the elections.
I hope everybody turns them off until after the 2008 elections. Listen to the candidates own words, not some loony who tells you what they said after they say it. Read what the candidates themselves write.
Don't depend on the MSM to put out the messages of the candidates. They won't do it without the twist and spin crap.

just as seriously as any other explanation. But we're afraid to touch that subject aren't we?

Republicans can NOT vote in the Democratic primary, but undeclareds can. They must have taken a lot of the vote Obama might have gotten.

Don't forget the same polls were right for the Republicans and correctly predicted Edwards vote. If there was a racist exodus against Obama it would go to Hillary, not Edwards, to stop Obama.

(Also known as the Bradley Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect )

In the case of Doug Wilder, the polls had him winning the Virginia governorship by about 9%; he did win, but only by half a percent. But this does NOT have to mean we're talking about a "racist" exodus. It simply means that SOME voters feel uncomfortable telling pollsters that they won't vote for the black candidate because they're afraid it makes them seem racist. This would be especially true amongst Democrats. There could be a sizeable contingent of Hillary supporters who, if asked by a pollster, will say they will vote for Obama: they're not voting "against" Obama's blackness; they just don't want to admit they have in fact decided to vote for the candidate who's not black.

Beyond race, I think we could say that speed was a factor in the vote/poll discrepancy. There were only 5 days between Iowa and New Hampshire. Obama's "bounce" upward in the polls was quick and impressive. A lot happened yesterday, as we all know, the semi-crying, the "iron my shirt" incident, etc. etc. I think it is very likely that the polls WERE right - that on Monday, Obama actually did lead by about 8% or so amongst the NH voters, but that enough of them changed their minds between Monday and when they actually voted on Tuesday to leave Hillary with a 2% in the end.

The October polls showed Hillary way ahead.

On the Democratic side, Clinton led Barack Obama 43%-22%. John Edwards was at 14% ,with all other candidates in single digits.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/nh-poll-clinton.html

That's just one sample October poll. Hillary should have won New Hampshire by a huge margin. The whole bit about her "win" is a lot of hype. Obama gained on her and came close to beating her within just a few months. His rise was to use a cliche meteoric.

This is yet another example of what my candidate will tell you is the manipulation of our democracy by the big corporations that own the media and the country. Hillary lost ground. She may have won technically, but in fact, she lost far more votes between October and the election than the margin of her so-called "victory." This is a set-up to make Democrats think Hillary is an inevitable winner for Super Tuesday.

I am an Edwards supporter. It is easy to see through what has happened here.