The NH Polls - The Bradley effect - And the MSM

First... Obama did VERY well in NH.
He even got more votes than Mc Cain.
Let me repeat that.
HE EVEN GOT MORE VOTES THAN MC CAIN.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH
CNN latest figures:
Clinton - 110,550
Obama - 102,883
MC Cain - 86,802

I see NO evidence of any Bradley effect. MSM spinning to say that there is, IMO, is just an effort to cover their own fannnies. NH voters DID vote for Obama. Just not enough.

Second...Several of the NH polls showed an extremely close race among registered Dems, which was overlooked because of the expected high indy turnout for Obama, which just didn't break for him.

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/NH/NHPZ080107.pdf
In this case, Clinton had a 6% lead:
On page 2, in the table on the top of the page you can see the Registered Dems numbers and the Indy numbers:
Dems: Clinton 36 - Obama 30.
Indys Obama 43 - Clinton 16.
The huge lead in Indy responses gave him and edge in the poll total, though Clinton was ahead with Dems.

In this one, Obama has a 1% percent lead with registered Dems:
http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/primary2008_demprim10708.pdf
Page six. Top table.
Dems: Obama 36 - Clinton 35
Indy: 45 Obama - 24 Hillary (listed as registered undeclared)
Indys put him ahead in the poll totals...but only 1% separated them in the registered Dem people polled.

There are other polls that showed the situation even closer.

I really believe that things were just tooo fluid on the ground to assess things correctly, considering the huge expected turnout, and large numbers making last minute choices.

The MSM was running with the Indy voter angle and ignoring just how close it was in the registered Dem numbers.

Anyway, thats my two cents about NH :)

I haven't seen a convincing explanation for that.

Edit: oops, reversed my states.

Obama's great NH numbers. He's not my candidate...but he had great numbers in NH. He beat everyone else running in the state, on both side, except for Hillary :)
I'm getting really tired of media spin.

Obama did very well there. People overlook the fact that he was way behind just a few weeks ago. If it wasn't for the overzealous polls of the past few days, we'd all be talking about how great he did there.

:sarcasm:
She can't possibly have just had more votes. :eyes:

I posted a interesting item earlier today (below) from Zogby. His questionable reliability aside, he makes some good points about why things went the way that they did.

His polls indicated that momentum was rushing Hillary's way the day before the vote, but the three-day averages helped hide the effect. Why he didn't mention that at the time is still unknown.

Thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4011969&mesg_id=4011969

I cant believe they knew there was solid shifting and didn't bother too address it. Shoddy work.

If so, the fact that none of them brought it up is unusual.

I only linked the two because I'm on dialup and it takes foreverrrrrrr for some sites to load for me.

that's why.

duh. That makes obvious sense.

Must...get...more...sleep.

And since you raise your hand/go to your corner in public in a caucus you have others that will also vote with you so you are not alone. This pundit went on to say that when you go into the private booth you are there by yourself and don't feel the same type of peer pressure.

This was the opinion of the pundit, not mine. Not sure what to make of it.

:thumbsup:

:)

...played at least a partial role in driving up the Clinton numbers - Women heavily out-voted men and went heavily toward Clinton - No 'Bradley Effect' - The M$M arrogance just gave them an additional reason to vote for her... Maybe they'll learn to report the news, not try to shape it - uh, oh yeah, I forgot...

also helped her a lot. I'm sooo sick of the media making the news.

They add up to me :hi: