In defense of questioning Hillary's win

A lot of people have said that it is wrong to question how the polls could be so wrong, but I think that questioning how the polls could be so wrong is essential to this fight.

1. I do not think Hillary cheated but I am willing to consider the possibility of cheating by someone when polls are very wrong. We MUST do this in order to maintain our right to question a republican win in November if the polls are off the results.

2. The MSM are saying that the Bradley effect is happening. This is very poisonous not only to Barack, but to Hillary. If they can say that people will lie in a poll because they are secretly racist, then they can lie because they are secretly sexist. Also the Bradley effect could suppress the minority vote if they feel disaffected or like there is no chance. For Hillary supporters who think a woman is immune to this should just wait and watch it happen to a woman if it works on a black man.

3. I think from all this discussion, we are forcing people to look at the polls and see that their methodology did not account for a huge female voter turnout. That can only be a good thing. #1 and #2  in my list is disaster for our party and our democracy.

I think just noting it without going ahead right now and acting hurts everyone in the long run.

Didn't the NY Times finally do a big article on voting machine issues? If so compile some data and call the reporter.

Colleges often have someone doing research on result anomalies and liklihood of accuracy. (Sometimes they take a long time though).


If you can build a good case, also contact Greg Palast.

We provide him with data in Election 2000 and he used it.

Hillary spent the last five days courting the young vote as well. The voters turned out, they just did not vote the way some expected them to. The under 30 vote is Obama's Achilles Heel. If Clinton can grab a big portion of it, it comes directly from Obama's count, IMO. This is why Obama did not catch up when the college towns votes came in. Hillary actually gained ground.

Hillary's win cam almost exclusively in Manchester and Nashua alone. Something like 4000 votes alone.

As a bloc, young people don't vote. Period. They are too young, immature, and concerned with drinking, drugs, and members of the opposite sex (or the same sex too I guess) to care. Obama could get 90% of people aged 18-24 and it woulnd't really matter. Now, those folks over 50, those are the ones you want. And HRC has those.

In what percentage? In other words, what percentage of 18-24 year olds in the state participated in the caucus?

If NH had paper ballots, I would have gone to bed last night perhaps unhappy with the results but not fuming over the fact that I couldn't trust the results.

Until we have open elections, no victory is legitimate.

it's possible. there need to be tests on numbers for that though; which is more likely to happen, a bradley effect where people lie in polls about voting for a woman, or by race.

hillary is so polarizing, though, how many people would be willing to lie about voting for her or not voting for her just to appear 'enlightened'? there are several women for whom it could apply, and we should keep on the lookout for that, women for whom a person could make an excuse that it's what's between her legs keeping a person (male or female) from voting for her. i don't see hillary providing that reason. her perceived negatives from people who have no intention of voting for her, are too high. in my opinion.

In a rare, unscripted moment last night, I think it was Brokaw who (still in shock) said: "Maybe we should look at all the candidates in this campaign and discuss the issues.." (paraphrased)

I'm certain they've rethought it this morning, however, because since the time I reluctantly turned the TV on I've seen nothing but continued coverage of Hillary's "moment" and more soap opera type coverage. No issues. Not one. Anywhere.