FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It was one of the biggest misses by the polls ever. They all saw Hillary Clinton losing to Barack Obama, and they were all wrong. As late as nine o'clock the night of the New Hampshire Primary, people inside the Clinton campaign were still saying they expected Hillary to lose.
So what happened? Some possible explanations from the pollsters suggest record turnouts produced a different electorate than expected. There's the idea that while the polls accurately showed Obama's support among independents, they didn't reflect the large Democratic turnout helping Clinton.
Others point to the fact that almost 20% of voters made up their minds on primary day and most of the polling had stopped before then.
There are those who suggest race may have played a role. The head of the Pew Research Center says poorer, less-educated New Hampshire voters may not have wanted to admit to pollsters that they wouldn't vote for Obama, a black candidate.
And, of course, there were the last-minute events on the campaign trail itself, including Clinton's emotional moment in that diner on Monday.
Regardless of why it happened, the polling industry – as well as the news media which rely heavily on polls – were all left looking pretty stupid. And it raises the issue of how heavily anyone should rely on them to begin with.
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Steve from New York writes:
I never believed the polls to begin with. They take too small of a sample size with such a small margin of error. To be honest, I have no idea how one poll is consistent with the next. I think these polls are a fabricated sham.
Jeff from Overland Park, Kansas writes:
Right up until the end in New Hampshire, I checked the polls on an almost hourly basis. I have not listened to, looked at or looked for a political poll since. Does that answer your question?
Chris from Thousand Oaks, California writes:
I believe it comes down to what voters will admit to. I believe Hillary is a "guilty pleasure" for some people and they just didn't want to admit to voting for her. As much as people say they want change, change is scary. The fact that Hillary wont change anything is comforting to some people who are unhappy with the current situation but don't want to risk it getting worse.
I don't see any reason why not to trust the polls: they were accurate for the Republicans, and the Iowans responded and admitted they were voting for a black candidate in Iowa. I think the answer might be that there was something
wrong with the machines used in New Hampshire.
I don’t think we should look at polls the same way again. I believe what happened in N.H. shows people are "closeted". When you go to the caucuses in Iowa, your neighbors and friends get to see who you are voting for. In N.H., you are behind the curtain. I think many more people like Hillary Clinton than let on—especially men.
Forget the polls, I don't even trust the vote.
Peter from Halifax, Nova Scotia writes:
You know what little dogs do to polls.
I think they hired Hans Blix to do the polling and he couldn't find the Hillary supporters.
Well, Jack, you seem to overlook the possibility that the polls were right and the voting machines were wrong.
I don't watch the polls to help me in my decision on who I want for next president. I don't think these polls help any of the Candidates or the people who are trying to make the right dicision for the next 4 years.
From an outsider's perspective, perhaps all 3 theories are correct to some degree. However, some clever pundit or analyst seems to have overlooked an important fourth. Could it be that a lot of NH voters were fed up with media coverage of the mo-jo, and 'Obama's 'cool' to young ladies in Iowa' stories, and thought it was time to give both the candidates and media a tad of important information – "give us some important 'voting' information. Remember!...it's getting rather ugly out there"? Either that or they may simply appreciate fem-testes more than certain members of the media do?
New trusted to begin with. It's just an outrageous way to control public opinion, shame on you media.
The polls are just estimates, usually very close estimates. I never really trusted them to begin with because they/you can spin them pretty much any way you/I want.
first you have to trust the process, don't you think?
No Jack, after New Hampshire, I'm less likely to believe vote counts. Why is it that polls can be right for decades, then we change to electronic voting and suddenly the polls are wrong? Am I missing something here? Are you?
Political polls are only a small slice of the whole pie and may or may not be very accurate. Garbage in Garbage out in other words. The media plays a very big roll in presidential elections. Who would know anything about the candidates if they were not televised or written about by the media? The media can put a good spin on a candidate or a bad spin and if the media was wrong with what they said they are seldom held accountable although a candidate may lose a once in a lifetime race because of it. I don't depend on just one source of media for information simply because of what I just said.
A very good example of this is the Woman who said she found a finger in Her Chilli at Wendy's The media ran wild with this story and Wendy's had to pull it's Chilli off the menu completely because of what one Woman said and the media saturation that it got. As it turned out months later the Woman was a liar and the finger was from a relatives severed finger that was put into the Chilli. Wendy's lost a fortune in business and customers because of what the media said. The media tries to be fair but it isn't always very fair at all and many people suffer because of its inaccuracies. The media only knows what they are told and seldom do they try and verify that what they have been told is the truth before they Air it. It may not seem all that important to some but then again they are not running for president now are they?
hI Jack do not count John Edwards out to soon .I need to let you know, my ancesters settled in America in the 1600's. I'm a Heinz 57 &100% american. . America needs a fighter right here on our soil. we are at war with all the people who are sending our jobs out of the country. John Edwards has lit a fire in america's belly&has the guts to back up what he says.
I have never trusted or believed any poll. Whatever organization conducts the poll just arranges and twists the information to fit its own agenda. Polls,like politics,is just so much propaganda.
I think this is great for the candidates who will no longer need to defend themselves from questions based on polling numbers. But it will make it much harder for reporters to who often use the polls to motivate candidates to respond to their questions.
I don't think race prayed a factor in the polls.
Obama numbers were pretty close to projected as were Edwards but Hillary's were much higher. I think you got some Republican crossover voting for Hillary because she is the Democrate they want to run against. she energizes their base and has the highest negatives of any Democrate.
You would think after Florida, the press would have learned a valuable lesson, but everyone seems to have a not so scientific fool-proof process that predicts what people will do even when they are undecided. The last time I was undecided about something I changed my mind after I had already paid for it, so I took it back and they gave my money back. So tell CNN and the rest of you geniuses who polled Obama's advantage, I'm sending you my cable bill, I want a refund. You will probably tell me you were right about Florida, they just didn't count all the votes. ... hey wait a minute Jack. ... they did count all the votes right?
I never did hold much faith in what the so-called polls say. I just go out and vote for the person who I feel is best suited to lead us in these troubling times. What does worry me is that there might be people who would go out and vote but instead stay in a warm house. Just because the polls say their candidate doesn't stand a chance to win. I realized that there is a big rating race among the news media. But we are in the process of choosing a president of the United States and having an affect on who might stay home instead of voting isn't worth moving up in the ratings. I am glad that the people decided to go out and vote in New Hampshire. But I hope the news media keeps this in mind in future primaries.
I don’t believe polls, never have and never will. Who are the people who take polls, make up the questions for the polls, and answer the polls? In my 50+ years, I never was asked a question to answer a poll, and if I were to be asked, well, I probably would not give an answer because I do believe that all the questions are prefabricated for a special purpose.
I also see a problem with polls, as answers to polls are divulged by the media, I suspect that many people will use these answers to make up their mind; when voting comes up they will follow what the majority of the people polled say because they believe it is the thing to follow and they do not want to be on the losing side! I remember making questions taking “polls” while taking psych classes years ago, and I could manipulate the answer to my questions to make sure that they would be fitting for my own benefit... and let’s face it, when it comes to voting, what is the percentage of the people who answer these polls compared to the amount of people who vote? How many people voted for President Bush and now regret having done so just because the polls showed that he was the person to reelect in 2004? Forget polls, use your own grey matter and think well before voting, don’t be part of what you think is going to be a winning crowd!
I did not trust the polls in the 1st place.
They have become nothing more than a tool for media to use to try to tell us what to think and and how to vote.
hI Jack do not count John Edwards out to soon .I need to let you know, my ancesters settled in America in the 1600's. I'm a Heinz 57 &100% american. . America needs a fighter right here on our soil. we are at war with all the people who are sending our jobs out of the country. John Edwards has lit a fire in America's belly&has the guts to back up what he says. Our fore-fathers are Shackelford, Boones, Carters. FINNEYS,ALL names in the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. These people fought to build America,now we need a fighter to keep it/ sincerely....Lewis Shackelford
I didn't trust polls before the primary. Why would I start now? All of you political analysts continually try to tell us how we vote and and what we are thinking even before we have a chance to sort it out. I hope this happens over and over again, because the media should allow the democratic process take place without all of the intereference from the media.
Frankly, if I am polled, I won't give an accurate answer. It's time for the American public to take back our democracy from the press and the political pundants.
Polls Electing Presidents, The News media electing Presidents, Talk show host electing presidents, hollywood stars electing presidents. This has turned into a big game show and the world is laughing at us, And the best this Great country can do is put an ex-presidents wife or a JR 1 YEAR senator from the democratic side or a bunch of war mongers on the republican side and ALL of them being backed by special interest in the white house. Change they say? It if was not so sad, it would be laughable.
I will trust the polls, but in the way they were meant to be used: as a fallible idea of where the wind is blowing, not as a guide to how people will vote or should vote.
The polls were accurate, but people changed their minds at the last minute. Even after 9:00 P.M. the night before the primary. Bill Clinton made people believe Obama had no clear viewpoint on Iraq even though this is not accurate, and Obama's October 2002 statement warning against going to war with Iraq was very clear, intelligent, and prescient. Hillary pulled off a political master stroke when given the opportunity by crying and showing emotion. What both Clintons did in the day or two before the election resonated in people's minds right up to the moment they voted.
I will trust the polls to a certain extent. Obama's poll
numbers were pretty much correct. Only Clinton's poll
numbers were less than the actual vote. I think a
combination of things occurred. One was more women
went to the polls and voted for Clinton. The good
weather could have played a role where more older
women voted and Hillary's misty moment also could
have contributed a little. And, lastly ,they didn't do the
polls on the last day when many people were making up
On a personal note, I am livid at the media, especially
TV talking heads, at the way they've beat her up time and
time again. She can't do anything right in the media's eyes.
It's very obvious the media is in love with Obama and hates
Hillary. It's helped me decide to vote for her.
I have had enough of this election, I dont believe the polls and I dont believe or listen to the media. I feel like taling a trip to Bali and not returning till 2012.
I never believe polls for 2 reasons: 1) The polees are a fickle bunch who will say anything they think the pollster wants to hear and 2) the polling will cast the most favorable light on whomever is paying for it. If it’s the Dems, the Dems will look better, same for the Republicans. Hence every candidate is ahead in the polls. And if it’s a media company, they will be looking for the most sensational results they can push – just like the monumental upset and landslide victory that Clinton ran away with. You'd think Obama was toast until you learn that it was only a 2% spread.
Why this fixation with right or wrong? Polls are interesting and make pollsters lots of money. So what if they are wrong? So what if they are right? Anyone who relies solely on poll results is stupid. They are indicators, but only one of many. The polling companies have conditioned us to think that their work is tbe be all and end all. Wrong.
Howard Kaufman, Toronto
They're at it again! The Black Box Voting Machine oversite group has noted irregularities in the NH primary. 55% votes are by machine, 45% by paper. A resounding number of votes for Obama on paper, the reverse on machines. Ron Paul got 31 votes in Sutton precinct, 0 were reported. He got 25 in Greenville precinct, 0 were reported. These machines stole a very important election from us last time, let"s go back to paper and make it harder for them this time around!
The nutballs are out in force on this one again, Jack, and while they're still nuts, I start to wonder. Diebold machines were again in use in New Hampshire, apparently, and the security concerns about the machines are still out there. Polls used to be accurate and valid prediction tools – now all of a sudden, they're worse than the guy that does your local weather. I don't have an answer, but I have more and more questions every day.
The fact that some polls ask certain questions of Republican voters and other questions of Democratic voters should clarify to us all one significant point about polls: The questions themselves may be biased, and in that bias, may result in results that don't tell the story they poll-makers intended to discover in the first. place. Polls are only as good as the questions asked, the neutrality of those questions, and how those questions are posed by the poll-takers. It's an inexact science at best. Did pollsters and the media learn NOTHING from Florida 2000?
having lived in Fl in 2000 as well 2004, I would invite you in Media-libeerrl to wonder if the poll were wrong or if anything else was in the mix........
Deibold readers counting in secret the paper ballots and finding something totally differing from what people said.....even them there independants in NH..except for the republicant votes...??????any possible reason to ?????
I hate to sy this from FL...but recount out of curiosity and to trust AND verify for sure!!!
Of course I believe in polls. Didn’t they predict that Gore won in 2000? Oh wait a minute, he did win, it’s just that no one expected the Supreme clowns to overturn an election.
Did you ever think that maybe the women in Iowa wanted to vote for Hillary , did not because of the crazy way they vote .Their husbands would know, in a booth we vote for who we want. I also feel a lot thought the media was attacking her 24/7 and not fair to her. I never hear a negative thing about Obama- is this man God does he walk on water! If Hillary had only two year in the senate , they would laugh her out of town. Of course the GOP will have a field day with him, they already started in the last dabate. Cable needs to stop campaigning for Obama and be fair to every one on both sides.
Pollsters apparently still believe voters give them honest answers. The two words still applicable to my knowledge are SECRET BALLOT. The polls were 90-95% correct for Obama, and 30% wrong for Edwards who was up in the polls, and Hillary who was down by a similar number. . Duuuhhh. As far as placinig a direct correlation to what happened with the vote versus the polls....nobocy on earth can say with any alacrity what the reason was. It was not landslide victory, nor was it monumental loss. Edwards it seems gets little or no press coverage even though he by far took the brunt of the mistaken polls. The NH primaries show one thing, apparently voters there prefer the status quo of the entrenched Washington Old Guard "stay the course" candidate. That's what they'll get with Hillary and her running mate Bill Clinton, as one media blog calls him.
Jack, I will continue use polls as a barometer of what is expected to happen. Not what will. Tuesday night taught me and all news media that the only poll that counts, is the one that tabulates the votes that actually count.
polls smolls, the voters are going to lead the pollsters on, i get polled regularly,
and i never tell them the truth, i tease thier siencetific process. fact is, who are they to call during dinner and exspect to get the straight skinny from us voters. this thing is going to the convention.
scott Bowling Green,mo.
As far as polling goes, it is just a quick snapshot of the people who were home and answered the phone and had time to take the poll.
The media influence was much worse, and frankly I wonder who "everybody" is, as in "everybody" says this or that. All of you guys and gals seem to be talking to some one named "everybody". Perhaps you need another source, since "everybody" really screwed up.
On the race thing, I saw that on 360 last night, and I was really surprised to see an Obama supporter forcefully arguing that this loss was "racism". Here we go, using the R word at the drop of a hat.
So am I to assume that if we DON"T nominate and elect Obama we will then be called a "racist" country? This guy clearly made the point that Bill and Hillary were using secret verbal signals that were racist. Aside from looking really stupid, this guy did a real disservice to Obama. If what he says is true, then is Obama electable, or will he be "Harold Ford-ed" in the general? If so, how can we take that chance?
So to suggest racism is not only incorrect, but against the interests of Obama, and an insult to those of us who do not see color or gender, but only issues and character. However I do wonder if Obama supporters are sexist, since so many of them wore those T shirts with “wash my clothes”, “iron my shirts” and “clean my house” written on them to Clinton events. I am sure this “racism” thing will get legs, as it has done already. However, will we be hearing about the T shirts, or is that not important? Have you checked with “everybody” yet to see what they are saying?
This just goes to show you that some of the population doesn't give a rats behind about those polls, it gives the media something to talk about, and then talk about some more when they are wrong. How about asking us how many of us have mis-lead a poll taker when we get called during dinner????
I never trusted polls and the only thing less credible than a political poll is the reporter citing it.
John kerry endorsing Barack Obama imagine that he couldn't defend or defeet in the 2004 Presidential himself race and comes out to endorse a candidate then ignores john edwards who he picked as his runningmate and lets not forget that President Bill Clinton went around the country stumping for this endorser. An endorsement by John Kerry I would consider a curse. he should go back into hibrination like he did after he made his last public speech on the Troops and made a fool out of himself. I see he is as loyal to the people who supported him in 2004 as he was to the soldiers he betrayed after the Vietnam War. I voted for john Kerry last election, but realize why he is called the SWIFT BOATER.
No. Chock it up to Human error!
I never have put any faith in polls. especially this early. Less than 1% of Americans have voted and all the early hoopla is way over rated. There are a lot of us out here that think differently, and have not been polled.
I don't like that cocky, arrogant , egotist, Macho, sexist, Obama. He acts like he is the second coming saviour. I kind of liked him at first but he has over rated himself. I really hope that we get someone to run Independent because if Obama gets nominated I will vote for anyone that is independent.
I think John Kerry has lost his mind.
I don't want to take a trip with a pilot with a learners permit or working OJT. Especially with the huge storm this country will be flying into after Bush leaves office.
Do not rely on pollsters; watch the results in the future of this elections season!! Obama will prevail against the established Democratic and Republican machines of the status quo!!
Obama is NEW and Refreshing!! He is not part of the tradiional politico of Washington DC. He is from the outside with a new vision! That is what scares the hell out of the Democratic and Republican establishment!! He represents the voice of the people and that is dangerous to established polticians, both Democrats and Republicans!!!
I predict Obama will be the next President of the United States of America, and it is about time that America has a vision of unity!! Unity has been shunned by Bush. Devisivness has been the norm for the last 7 years of the Bush Administration. Divide and spout fear!! Bush has a legacy in history. The legacy of fear and religious dogma!! He will be remembered as THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!!
I think the polls were right. No one has suggested how the media coverage may have influenced voters. I believe that many of the independent voters who were thinking about voting for Obama felt that he was a shoe-in, so they decided to help McCain instead.
Hillary's tears caused a tide, low on the horizon. I often wondered if that tide was rising or ebbing. I tell you it was a rising tide. The polls couldn't predict the tsunami but tsunami's are rare so I'll keep watching the polls. It wasn't hanging chads or dimpled chads because diebold voting machines don't work that way.
Topic: Kerry endorsement of Obama
Obama will regret this endorsement. After the last election, voters began to realize Kerry has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth and make claims that are not true, as the Swift Boat group showed us. Why Obama want to drag the Kerry albatross along behind him is a puzzle.
I've never really paid attention to the polls. Case in point, although you all have written John Edwards off, I've voted for him on my absentee ballot here in California. Why? Because even though I do like Sen. Obama & Sen. Clinton I see John Edwards as the better candidate. Sen. Obama doesn't have adequate debating skills, although he does give 1 hell of a speech. But, giving speeches doesn't make you a great debater. Sen. Clinton just has too much baggage attached her. It's not her fault, but, the Republicans will use it. So, you all can use those polls if you want to, but, here am I the contrarian to those polls.
it is not even possible for polls to be 100% accurate, i actually think they were as on as ever in New Hampshire, the problem: women lied. they said they'd vote for Obama, but after Hilary's crying fit they let their hormones get the best of them, and voted for a woman because they want to see a woman as President... which for the record, I'm cool with. I just wish they wouldn't have lied to the pollsters about it. at the end of the day, it's not the polls we should distrust; it's women.
Hillary was put down by the media even before the new hampshire primary took place, she felt the pressure by the media. Obama got praise and the media kept saying he would be the winner of nh and sweep hillary. I think some media outlets need to be careful what they say to the public because what you hear in the media isn't always true. Only the american people can decide who will be our next president. I think hillary will be victorious I don't think obama tells us what we wanna hear its about hope and change but where is the true facts and expierence. Obama has the same old speechs every time and doesn't interact enough with crowds, hillary takes questions and understands what we go through. Jack it's time for a women president something we never had but change is now and I believe hillary will change america for the better. Obama is just acting too aggressive and speaking like JFK I will say he is a excellent speaker but would not make a great president, maybe vice president.
Lawrence R. Decoste
You've overlooked the fact the polls for the Republican candidates were right on the money. What the polls did not pick up for the Democratic candidates, however, is (1) how voters (particularly women) would respond to the piling on of anti-Clinton rhetoric from the so-called "political experts" and (2) the media's overwhelming endorsement of Obama as America's saviour. New Hampshire voters do not want the media dictating how they should vote! Unfortunately, there just was not enough time following the Iowa primary for the pollsters to pick up on the positive swing towards Hilary, which occurred within days (if not hours) before the New Hampshire primary. The media's desire to prematurely ordain a nominee seems to backfire on the candidate. Happened to Clinton months ago, and now it's happening to Obama. Funny, I think I trust the polls far more than I trust the media's "unbiased" reporting.
I never heavily rely on polls. They just give me a genenral idea of the number of votes a particular candidate may get. And, yes, I'd watch them for entertainment when to replace boredom.
Trust? now that's funny, I didn't know such a thing existed in elections. If so, after the 2000 race all mine has vanished.
Poll all you want, the Vote is what we need to TRUST!
Who cares about the polls.
This is nuts, whats going on & the media has said next to nothing.
Come on Jack, your better than that.
Belle Plaine, MN
Polls (scientific or not) are nothing but a way to subtly "sell" a product and to sell news to the public. Polls are an interesting phenomenon, but they really are just arbitrary and anecdotal. It's common sense that if Candidate A was shown to be leading, everyone would most likely focus their attention to A, and not care about Candidates B to F, influencing the polls in an unfair manner. I would be more interested in seeing an election, where all parties (candidates and voters) are blinded where no polls are held, and in such a situation, vote by their true feelings and present a true vote of confidence.
Polls should not be relied on in any way, shape, or form. Just let the chips fall where they may.
I think it's the fact that almost 20% of voters made up their minds on primary day. And that is related to Hillary's "tearing up" in that diner. Women felt sympathetic to her and IMO came out in droves to show that sympathy. The polls were already taken by then, not reflecting that event. I feel it's not a good reason to vote for someone, but it happened.
So let me get this straight , the pundits and the media have egg on their face, and now we NH voters,the ones who made up our minds at the last minute ,are racist liars. Oh wait you have now added uneducated so that means stupid as well. I would like to point out that polls are usually done by phone in the privacy of your own home so why didn't the same happen in Iowa you don't take a poll in public. Why didn't that lying 8 or 10% just say they were voting Republican or for Edwards or undecided. The fact that women were a big factor in her winning is different from Iowa why don't you add we were too emotional to vote rationally. That was the sexist point the media were trying to make about Senator Clinton 's emotion on Monday, A president has to be strong etc etc. I know I will never feel the same about Senator Edwards after his comments that day maybe I am not the only one. Weas voters took a beating after the 2000 Republican Primary , we didn't know how to vote then either according to those in the politcal world, After the last seven years I think a majority agree we might have been right not to choose President Bush. Now it is up to the rest of the country to vote with their minds and hearts , I just hope they are not torn to pieces for voting they way they want instead of how the media and establishment wants them too
I DID NOT TRUST THE POLLS BEFORE
Clinton's win is not attributable to the polls being incorrect. Did the polls take into account how many Republicans voted for Clinton in the New Hampshire primary in order to increase the odds of a Republican actually winning the General Election. They know if Obama is nominated to run for President , he's a lot harder to beat than Hillary Clinton.
It's quite possible the polls were right. What might have skewed them was a concerted effort by Republicans to crossover and vote for the candidate they most wish to run against: Hillary. Considering the the 2002 election phone jamming scandal, it's well within the realm of possibility . . . and legal. A Republican in New Hampshire can go from Republican to Independent to Democratic voter and back to Republican with little difficulty. Exit polls are based on whether you voted for the Republican or Democratic candidate and would give a result similar to the actual vote. There's got to be a better reason than Hillary's crocodile tears for Obama's double digit lead to shrink overnight.
Forget the polls, I don't even trust the vote.
I won't turst the polls or the idiots reporting them.
Right up until the end in New Hampshire I checked the polls on an almost hourly basis. I have not listened to, looked at or looked for a political poll since. Does that answer your question?
Overland Park, Kansas
Who cares about wether or not voters will still have faith in the polls? Last time I checked it was the faith in the candidate that mattered in the end. In a world of instant gratification in all things, it is really nice to know that at least the ballot box still remains sacred, right?
I never believed the polls to begin with. They take too small of a sample size with such a small margin of error. To be honest, I have no idea how one poll is consistent with the next. I think these polls are a fabricated sham.
I don't see any reason why not to trust the polls: they were accurate for the Republicans, and the Iowans responded and admitted they were voting for a black candidate in Iowa. I think the answer might be that there was something wrong with the machines used in New Hampshire. Of ballots counted by hand, Obama won with a great margin. Of ballots counted by machine, Clinton won by a great margin. Why should how the ballots are counted make a difference?
Hillary won because she got out of bed, went to the people, stated her case, and won them over. Not looking for sympathy–just working her butt off!
I think the question you should be asking is: "Can we trust the election results?"
Forget the darned "polls", when there have already been numerous claims of election fraud in both Iowa and New Hampshire. It is time the media does it's investigative journalism about the election results.
Forget the polls focus on the voting booths and the vote counters.
I dont think we should look at polls the same way again. I beleive what happened in NH shows people are "closeted". Whe you go to the Caucuses in Iowa your neighbors and friends get to see who you are voting for, in NH you are behind the cutrain. I think many more people like Hillary Clinton that let on. Even when you are asked by someone taking a poll, you may not want then to know that you are a Clinton supporter, especially MEN. I also think polls may sway people what to do. They should be done away with.
I never did trust the polls to begin with.
Many things can happen in between now and November, Jack.
Hillary may have won the polls this time, but did you see how close Obama was to winning?
Who knows, in the next primary, Obama may succeed in getting more than Hillary.
And as far as the U.S. Neocons...well, let's just say that things may be looking up for McCain.
I think the question should be should we trust polls to begin with. This is not a new phenomenon. It is as old as the polling process itself. President Dewey anyone?
Race is the reason the polls are so wrong and here's why: It's the EXIT polls that were used to determine the probable outcome of the New Hampshire election. People were asked how they voted AFTER actually casting their votes. They lied and said Obama when they'd really voted for Clinton. End of story.
I have never really felt the polls to be an accurate indication of whom is ahead. Instead, I often view it as an indicator to how a population is affected by any recent activity. It seems people are more comfortable saying one thing to a pollster, then acting more rashional when it actually comes to their vote.
Jack I don't think its so much about trusting polls, but trusting that the voting process is not flawed and tampered with. Here's a question:
Could election fraud be a possible explanation for the New Hampshire primary results in the Democratic election this week? Did faulty machines play a role? And why if every other possible explanation from crying to race and gender is being raised are we not raising this as the most logical explanation? Maybe its the results and not the polls that are incorrect.
-Andrew in California
I'm sorry Jack but I really believe that the polls wern't wrong, our problem is with the corrupt voting machines. The hand counted paper votes differ so much in percentages from the electonic machines that I believe the election was tampered with. There should be a recount and/or a new vote all with paper ballots.
C'mon! The press was shocked by Obama's win in Iowa, and just jumped on the Obama band wagon because they thought that's what the voters wanted. Polls are polls. I lie on purpose when polled to throw the results off. And I encourage others to, as well. Seriously, I don't thin I know how old I am anymore–I've changed it so many times. They are a joke. And they are relied on too heavily.
Jack: I never bother with polls; never have and never will. I have a personal set of principles that I believe will serve the country best. I try to find a candidate that who's principles match mine and I vote for that candidate.
You assume that I ever trusted polls. The standard cliche' applies - lies, damn lies and statistics. Polls are very useful, but they can mislead any many deliberate and accidental ways.
Aw, give it a rest, Cafferty.
The polls were RIGHT, showing 30-40% of New Hampshire voters UNDECIDED.
You bloviating pontificators were WRONG in your reporting.
Group think. You know, the crap that got us into the Iraq War.
You guys are guilty as charged.
Get over yourselves.
Polling is another industry in this country. I am so tired of polls becoming "the news". I have been polled and resent being a subject of manipulation.
More coal for my fire . Polls do affect many , but I have never been a fan of others beliefs dictating or even slanting mine . Evidence can be found every day the ponies run and those with the " TIPS " show up . If anyone is good at predicting outcomes , they surely won't sell the truisms . Wake up lazy Americans , do your own homework on things of importance .
when are you going to suggest that the cure for ILLEGAL immigration is to make LEGAL immigration the best choice?
Jack, the real problem was how you media folks used the polls. You were all so elated that they showed Hillary losing, you never mentioned or noticed the Undecideds, the lower level of surety about their choices on the Obama side, and the overstating of Independents. Next time, use a little of your normal skepicism of reports that you want to believe.
The polls have a place... but OBama's lead was so big based on the polls it seems that some either decided not to show up or gave a vote to McCain. Hillary got lucky that time.. barely winning in a majority white State... This will be over after Feb 5th.
what do the poles matter at all, they are not in any way a final decision. They are just a bunch of biased decisions that are made to sway votes according to a news channels favorite politicians. The media does not present news anymore, instead they present a biased talk show telling people who to vote for. When will America see the truth instead of biased one sided talk. That day is the day that America will be the greatest nation in the world. That is the day we shall live in a truly free nation full of facts, freedom, and liberty. Polls would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves. "Give me liberty or give me death." – Patrick Henry
A poll is a poll is a poll, it doesn't mean much, it's just a snapshot of a randomly selected group of people at a certain time. So much changes from when a poll is taken to election day. I think the media overanalyzes everything about a poll and and the projections their make are often the ones that are screwed up. So I think it's not a question of polling but really how a pundit, analyst, media outlet interprets the information is what we should trust. Honestly that's what I don't trust.
Yes I will, because if they do not get it right again, the pundits and pollsters will have the same approval numbers as George W. Bush, and nobody wants those numbers.
The media tries to create a story where one does not exist. What's the stuff about who will win the White House in November when we don't even know who will win? Why must we be led to believe it'll always be Hillary Clinton versus Rudy Giuliani? Do you guys know something we don't?
The media got it wrong in 1948 and in 2000. They got it wrong in Iowa and in new Hampshire this year.
Just report the news when it happens and stop trying to analyze it before it occurs.
I haven't believed the pols for a long time. Now I can't believe the polls. Who do I turn to now?
Ahhhhhh you think it may be voter fraud Jack? Were Diebold machines used? Have these same Diebold machines been proven to be unreliable and very hackable? You guys are missing the story. . . .again.
WMDs, Gitmo, trillion-dollar deficit–Jack, my money's still on the polls.
I take with a grain of salt the polls. They are at best a view into a cloudy crystal ball. For what they are, perhaps educated guesses as to how people might cast their votes, I still adhere to that age old rule when dealing with what people may do: Even under the most tightly of controlled conditions, people will do as they damned well please. The pollsters missed their guesses..
It's interesting. I don't think any of the theories regarding New Hampshire is correct. I'm a Republican, however I think there are some serious inconsistencies on the Democratic voting patterns.
I won't say Clinton supporters corrupted the polls or committed fraud, however I do not believe it was entire legitimate.
Ali A. Akbar, Texas
Everyone is so sick of political pollsters calling them at home and invading their personal space. I don't even live in a swing state and they annoy me! How can we trust the polls when half the people don't answer the phone anymore and the other half are bound to answer whatever gets them off the phone fastest?
I am old enough to remember the race between Harry Truman
and Tom Dewey and with the news passed around that Dewey
would certainly be the winner!
I can still see in my mind Truman holding up the newspaper
with the huge letters that he had won! No! I don't trust polls.
The race isn't over until the Fat Lady sings!!!! LOL
Nancy Sullivan in Alaska
I have rarely put much stock in political polls. I have been asked several times over the years and never have given a true answer. Why should I? Pollsters seem to never ask questions properly; they always want the surface answer. Well, life is more compex than that. I'm happy to have a discussion about the issues and the candidates, just don't ask me those superficial questions. I'll never give a straight answer. Anyway, why all the emphasis on polls? Let us vote, then count 'em and announce the winner. Do the inveterate gamblers need the polls to satisfy their addiction?
The polls are not the problem; the problem is the media who takes the polls and dissects them with commentators adinfinitum until we are bleary eyed listening to the pundits, newscasters, etc. If the media would just quote the polls and leave the constant breakdown alone, we would all be happier.
Until about three or four years ago, telephone research was considered the gold standard. In most industries that rely on ongoing research, they no longer are - more people than ever screen calls (particularly at key time when pollsters call, and about 20% of people use cell phones and no land line (and they are not included in polls). Today, people whio are willing to answer phone surveys are not representative of the population at large. It seems only the political pollsters (and by extension, you guys), still rely on them.
Nice try, Jack. No cigar.
The polls were right: 30-40% of New Hampshire voters were still UNDECIDED.
The bloviating pontificatin pundits were WRONG. Too lazy to read the details of those very polls.
You guys blew it. Quit making excuses and move on.
Group think in the media? Exactly what got us into this lousy war, remember?
I dont beleve the polls should be trusted!.
every body knows and expects them to be manipulated i thik in this election.
I beleve weve already seen inconsistancy in them in newhampshre with ron paul
It really isn't the polling that concerns me as much as the macho male/stupid female journalism that is trying to sway votes a certain direction. I wonder what direction that is at CNN. Put this comment on your program-but oh no you must only report what you want.
Polls didn't lie. Crying game and race card played by Bill Clinton won New Hampshire. More tears and race cards, more wins for the Clintons. And CNN will continue to show only the crying parts instead of attacks from Clintons.
No Jack I won't, and furthermore, I'm glad the people of New Hampshire tricked those in-your-face pollesters. Also, after the contencious last two elections I doubt the American Public will ever give those guys an honest answer. The press looks too good with egg on their faces.
I think we can count the New Hampshire poll incident an oddity. More often than not, the polls themselves can be relatively accurate. What should change is the media's reliance on the polls in their rush to be the first to announce a winner in the primaries. We saw the same rush to judgement in the 2000 General Election. Why not combine polls with focus groups to get a more worthwhile look into the the minds of American voters?
I trust them neither more nor less: I've always been aware of the actual substance and purpose of political polling – they are predictive tools and heuristics, nothing more. If polling results absolutely equated to actual results, we wouldn't need any elections.
I'll admit it. I had some trust in the polls until I began to see Clinton begin to have a good lead over Obama and that is when I simultaneously reminded myself that the polls were cited and controlled by the media, the people who are making this election what it is. And I think this issue is ridiculous to cover in the first place, as though New Hampshire is one of the last states or is the last state to decide this nomination process, and no, I won't trust the polls again. Everyone needs to keep their pants on, we'll know who the nominees are by February 6.
Polls results are not from normal people. The rest of us learned a long time ago to use caller-id to identify when pollsters were calling and how to avoid them. The only people pollsters are talking to are those people willing to talk to anyone about anything, which usually means they are also willing to say anything. Old computer geeks know GIGO, garbage in – garbage out.
I will not trust the polls again Jack.
Here's why. There is proof that the NH polls did not count votes for Ron Paul in at least 2 countys including Sutton district and Greenville. Whether it was negligance or fraud, it needs to be brought to light and investigated.
I'm just asking for a fair voting process, nothing more, nothing less.
No, and I won't trust the media either. You folks got it all wrong, what tipped the balance for Hillary for me was the way she took on Edwards, Obama and Charlie Gibson on the debate. The more you fellows dish her, the better she will do in the polls. I am a former Kerry-Edwards supporter but what happened the past few days and made me a firm supporter of Hillary.
Trust the polls???? I would just as soon trust the bookies in Las Vegas.
Ha... Trust the polls is like believing every word coming out of the politicians mouth. It just isn't going to happen! LOL
The polls are a way to shift public opinion. Media uses the polls that are favorable to their agenda and present them to the public. I am a member of a meet up group for Ron Paul, there is 600 members. There has not been a call to any of us asking us who we plan to vote for, yet we are all registered for a party. So who exactly participates in the polls?? Obamas campaign team? Fox News?
No, I do not trust the polls. As we can see they are not always reliable. I know we're all eager to get Bush out of office, but these polls are just another example of America's obsession with instant gratification.
just because a car does not start up right away once does not mean it's time to throw it away. polls are guesses made based on the available information. people should not rely on them to help make up their minds for them, but should give them an idea how others MAY be thinking. the only people who should be concerned about the polls' reliability should be politicians, considering how some of them seem to tailor their responses based on these results.
You ask us to tell you how we (really feel) but, do YOU REALLY CARE?
I know you receive many comments from your viewers, and your electronic response says they are all read, and yet many very pertinent comments are never commented on your broadcasts. For instance, will you please ask the question in the Situation Room during your 4 to 7 pm segments: “Why is it; that even though Alan Keyes’ name is on no less than 18 Presidential Ballots, including Iowa and New Hampshire, there has been no mention of him, on the Public Airway, or News commentary?
Are the Fox Network, and CNN; (the two main sources of domestic and international News) employed or owned by the GOP or the Republican National Committee. Do you not have your own command of sense and sensibility?
Even if it is true; that Dr. Keyes was too late to be placed on the electronic listing of candidates, what about the CNN.com's ELECTION CENTER broadcastings? Alan Keyes has been qualified to run Since September 2007, It is now January, 2008. Votes have been cast and counted.
You might also want to ask the question; Are we going to repeat the Bush, Gore, saga once again? (when it was announced Gore was ahead, the Bush camp screamed; COUNT THE VOTES BY HAND). Millions of interested, undecided, independent electors will be watching tonight. Will you become the MOST TRUTHFUL REPORTER ON TV, or will you remain with all of the other system serving, scripted ANNOUNCERS on TV?
Alan Keyes is in the race, Do not deny it and be, cause a CHANGE and be "FAIR AND BALANCED"
THE COMMONWEALTH BODY of registered voters in America.
I never really trusted the polls in the first place. This is a very close presidential race so it can't be expected they would be accurate anyway.
My trust in polls will stay the same. Voters should never rely on polls when deciding whether to vote, and for whom they should vote. Hasn't anyone realized that perhaps Obama did not do as great as the polls showed was because voters thought he had such a large lead in the polls, and therefore felt he did not need their vote. This was especially likely in the NH open primary, where independent voters decided to influence the Republican race. Generally, polls are informative and helpful, but I never trust them or rely on them, especially because of the margin of error inherent in polls to begin with.
How can traditional polls measure what is happening in a non traditional election.
What questions could be asked to anticipate how a women feels about voting for the first women presidential candidate. A lady friend of mine asked how she could do anything but vote for Hillary. "What would I tell my grandaughter when she askes if I voted for her. All this while telling her she can be anything she sets her mind to when she grows up"! I have a tendency to think like that too and I am a Republican!!
Trust polls?? Maybe if they start asking the right questions!!
I think people already forgot about all the exit polls back in 2004 when they all said that John Kerry was elected president.
After N.H polls results I came to the conclusion that polls should never be part of how people look at a candidate. Just do what you have to do, reserch all the candidates by yourself and then pick one, don't listen to anyone especially these polls. They are all fake.
Boca Raton, FL
Jack, Pollsters are a lot like sports and horse handicappers. Every once in a while they are way off, but 80% of the time or more they are usually spot on. Sure i'll trust them again This is the first time in recent years i can remember pollsters being this incorrect.
The polls seem less like data, more like propaganda meant to sway voters minds for the media owners' chosen candidates. Giuliani was way ahead in all the polls, but somehow this has not translated into reality. Fox news used polling data as their excuse to exclude Ron Paul from the NH debates. This lack of objective reporting paints Paul as less of a candidate as Giuliani. The votes tell a different story. Fox news should consider living up to their motto by reporting the news and letting us decide!
There's also the possibility that the Diebold-based computer system miscounted the votes. Read the cover story in last Sunday's New York Times for a chilling account of how computerized voting can be hacked or just fall apart.
It could be that the New Hampshire polls were right (including Hillary's, which predicted her defeat) and that the vote count was wrong.
This isn't nut-case conspiracy theory anymore; it's a real threat.
Keep up the good work! I have always felt ambiguous about polls in general. That gives a lot of people the chance to back a winner without ever pondering the issues. I was born in NH and always thought it dangerous to give 13 ( at the time I lived there) voters from Dixville Notch the enormous amount of coverage they got by voting at midnight to first every year. That was the shot heard round the world.
Dennis in Belize
I have never cared or listened to the polls the arrogance of the pollsters pontificating the outcome on elections or caucus is ridiculous. Asking 1 in every 300 how they are going to vote and then generalizing that answer to the other 300 is a joke. Most of the time I feel the poll is used to sway public opinion on the undecided, much like smear campaigning I believe in smear polling.
I never really let pollsters influence my thoughts regarding much of anything...much like movie critics, they are simply making their own personal pronouncements under the guise of legitimacy. I'll ALWAYS reserve the right to reach my own conclusions. Far too many pollsters seem to attempt to create news with their prognostications, especially during an election campaign. The reason they missed NH is because they had no idea what the he** they were talking about.
The polls were probably right its just that many people have a second mind.There is also the silent majority.What ever it was it was kind of magical to see the whole polling system being so wrong.One for the people
Clarification: the story was the cover item in the NY Times Magazine.
Jack, Pollsters are a lot like sports and horse handicappers. Every once in a while they are way off, but 80% of the time or more they are usually spot on. Sure i’ll trust them again This is the first time in recent years i can remember pollsters being this incorrect.
My stance on the polls will not change, they're not foolproof. It's like the survey's we get at work so management can determine how they are doing; the problem is is that the questions are scewed towards their favor and make them feel good about themselves despite the fact that some of them are downright corrupt and couldn't handle the real truth. The NH misfire is proof positive that polls shouldn't be relied upon and that they are merely filler material for the media to use in the voids of their programs.
I believe the polls were right on target. I think the real question here is whether or not the N.H. primary results were possibly rigged to take the win from Obama. Personally, I believe they were.
Polls were not my problem,Jack! It is the pundits,esp on MSNBC?Chris Matthews, who could not wait to tell me how wonderful Obama is and how Clinton machine is spinning everything, that got me .I swear that kind of battering of a woman,must have moved enough of us to get our vote out!Matthews even marveled at one point about Obama finding time between campaign appearences,to call Condi Rice offering help in fixing Kenyan problem.I am sure you all would let us know when you seeObama walking on water,which will be anytime soon!
Alan Keyes is in the race, Do not deny it and cause a CHANGE and be "FAIR AND BALANCED"
How could the media and all the polls be so wrong? It makes me wonder what really happened in that state. I am genuinely surprised Barack Obama has not called for a recount, especially since Diebold voting machines have been proven to be suspect and found to be faulty in previous New Hampshire elections. It begs the question if Hillary was really the winner there!
Kansas City, MO
Jack, I gave up trusting polls after the 2000 Florida mess. That goes for news forcasts, can you blame me. You promised me brains (Gore) and gave me a brain dead president in Bush.
If someone came up to me after I voted and asked "who did you vote for?" I'm not going to give them an honest answer. Its my business not anyone else. Does that make me dishonest? I don't think so. Why can't we all be patient for the votes to be tallied before the polls project them? By the way, the media chooses who the next U.S. President is. How many times did you show Hillary getting watery eyed but didn't show the rest of the clip when she started bashing Obama again. You know what your doing!
I have no problem believing the polls. When the polling goes wrong, I don't blame the pollsters, or the methodology, or any such thing. I blame the people responding o the polls. Whenever race is an issue polling and survey research becomes suspect. I think every social scientist knows this. People simply aren't willing to admit their racial bias to pollsters. People are trying their darndest to deny the Bradley effect here, because nice northeastern democrats aren't supposed to harbor any kind of racial animosity. But history shows otherwise. Some say that there was no Bradley effect because Obama got about the same percentage as he was polling. The problem with that is that it wasn't just the pre-election polls that were wrong. The exit polls also predicted an Obama victory by about five percentage points. He lost by three, which is an eight point difference. This points to a Bradley effect again. I can believe the polls, but if there is a black candidate involved we need to be more cautious with the data.
Initially, why are polls important to the voting public ?
It is at best spoon fed opinions force fed by the media to those who can't get enough, those who couldn't care less and those who wish it would cease.
The media blares and blasts "the polls" to no end; thus the responsibility for credibility is shared between the messenger and the message.
Care to comment on that?
Why should American citizens disclosen to the media whom they voted for. It is none of their business. It does not service the American public and only serves the self-serving media which are trying to be the first to predict the winner and boost their ratings.
I would think that the only way that polls could affect the outcome of a vote would be if voters were to turn out at a higher rate in order for their candidate to catch up to the poll leader. I'm sure that it wouldn't encourage more turn-out for the leader, unless you are a front-runner. Therefore, it seems that it would be preferable to be trailing by a slim margin in a poll rather than leading it. Moving forward, I think voters will look at polls as an indicator of who will be upset rather than who will prevail.
If "reporters" would do more reporting and less pontificating about polls, your question wouldn't be necessary. I realize the poor "talent" is bored to death as they cover the candidates, but since two-thirds of American households don't even make 50k per year, don't look for sympathy from the public. With 24 hour networks like CNN, we need MORE reporting, and less PONTIFICATING, instead of hearing the same bland, "process" or "poll results" stories every hour on the hour, or sometimes more than once an hour.
When will "journalists" realize "we the people" don't CARE what you guys "think", and start informing the public via repeated, in-depth reporting on candidate's positions on issues, & how it contrasts with opponents, or how accurate what candidates say about each other actually is? IOW, stop trying to "shape", or even outright determine the outcome, and start doing your jobs and informing the public on what's important to the typical American, instead of what you high-profile "journalists" seem care about, which seems to be doing the least amount of work/reporting as possible.
Yes, Jack, it IS "ugly out here", and you guys are a big part of the problem.
It is absurd that anyone would trust them ever again. I think that the media, such as CNN, also rely too heavily on the polls, which lead viewers to base their judgment on false beliefs. The American people should be aware that polls reflect only a certain portion of the population, and should not be used make assumptions on who will win.
Polls are useful, but they are only a guide to what might happen. Buyer beware.
I found it interesting that so many commentators rushed out – often angrily – to say "hey , no race as a factor here." If this was the first time in our history that we'd seen a black candidate's polling lead mysteriously disappear when white voters went into the booth, it would be easier to discount. Don't get me wrong, I'm not absolutely certain that race was a factor, but given the experiences of Tom Bradley, Doug Wilder, David Dinkins and Harvey Gantt among others with the same phenomenon, I'd love to hear someone say, "hey maybe there is an issue here, but I can't be sure yet. Let' s watch what happens in the coming primaries."
René in Pennsylvania
I NEVER TRUSTED THEM ANY WAY. BUT MY PROBLEM IS WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT HOW SLIM A MARGIN SHE WON BY IT WAS THE MARGIN OF ERROR IN MOST POLLS ANY WAY. HILARY MAY HAVE WON THE NITE BUT OBAMA GOT THE VICTORY HE LOOKED NOTHING LIKE HER WHEN SHE LOST.
The truth of the matter, from the polls I saw, the media got it wrong. From what I saw Obama got the same percent as the polls said he would. The difference was in the undecided. When the numbers go something like 37, 29, 20 that does not make 100%. The media is all to quick to pick a winner and don't want to talk about the undecided. I also saw some polls that ask, Could you change your mind? Those numbers could well have made the difference.
There is really no problem with the way the polls were conducted. They were generally on target in estimating Obama's share of the vote. They just undersestimated Clinton's share, and all indications are that the undecided voters broke heavily for Clinton on election day when it was past time for polling. This is the Truman-Dewey effect occurring much later in the game than in 1948.
I think the polling industry will be just fine, going forward.
I would just make one small suggestion. The bottom tagline on all poll results should be changed to read "Margin of Error – + or – 100%. This should spare us the two days of pollsters and media making all the excuses for "getting it wrong".
Oh yeah, polls (poles) are only good for holding up power wires!
I worked in polling (with clients whose names you know) for 20 years. Why believe polls after New Hampshire? Why did we believe them to the extent we do after the 2004 election? The fact is, polls cannot predict the future. They are at best a snapshot of the moment. They cannot predict the future, even by a day, because in this instant-information age, a day is a very long time, a lot of minds can change in 24 hours. The best information in such polls may be the breakdown of how people feel about an issue or candidate correlated to their various "demo" groups (age, gender, income, etc.) , more than a prediction of how the total vote will add up. In sports, when the team expected to lose wins, we say "that's why they play the games". Don't expect the poll to tell us things that only the actual election ( or Primary) can.
Jack: My preference changed from Obama to Clinton during her New Hampshire campaign. I started to lean toward her after watching the debate in Iowa, and then I was certain she was my candidate when, during a question and answer period with voters, she spoke compassionately about victims of the mortgage crisis and her ideas for intervention and change in the amount of (in my words) equity that big corporate can steal out from under homeowners as they struggle to keep from losing their homes.
Voters are changing their minds as they get to know the candidates, and hear them speak on issues that are important to them. I would expect the polls to become more accurate in time, as voters hear more from candidates and read about their position on various issues of concern.
Of course I'm in Michigan, where the primary this year is utterly meaningless. A lot of Dems are going to stay home on Tuesday, or they might vote for Hillary when they want Obama or Edwards, because they want to vote for a Dem, or they may even, in protest, vote for a Republican. Our primary is a huge waste of state tax dollars. In Michigan, the polls will be much more accurate than the votes! So there you go.
I trust the Polls as mutch as I trust the Media>
Jack "O" Jack....
Something is fishy here!!!! How was the republican primary turned out to be as predicted by polls, the democratic one was way off? Can't you read between the lines... I thought you were a "Big boy", perhaps smarter than that. May be wold can help you because, i think there was some voting fraud... I am not sure where that came from, and i don't any evidence to suggest that but something happened... may be the clinton machine, did what they do best. Democracy!!! Damn right Democracy... I thought i was in Kenya for once.
I don't believe the polls any more than I believe the Germans or the French or that the Czech is in the mail,
Arbo in Mariposa, CA
Jack, of all the possibilities you listed, you missed the obvious one. Maybe the polls were right! When every poll including the exit polls show that Obama won, why is no doubt cast on the actual vote? Especially in a state largely using electronic voting machines, which your network itself has shown to be susceptible to fraud. I'm not suggesting assuming this without evidence; I'm suggesting actually looking at the evidence. Evidence that clearly shows Obama winning the hand counted vote and loosing the electronic vote. Jack, why aren't you talking about this?
Jack, I think it's about time we got such flap from the polling industry; this will cause the industry to take what they do seriously, ask the right questions and look carefully at poll results before they are made public. This is an important industry to politics. Withouts polls of the issues important to voters, Politicians will careless about the peoples' concerns.
The polls were very clearly some way from the actual figures, which would make anyone wonder why they are looked at. I would think that after so many years of experience the polls would be more accurate. I wonder if they realized that they had no clue of who was in the lead and so tried to sway the public into their line of thinking. Truth be told, this is the only logical explanation that makes sense.
No, I'm not less likely to believe the media and polls. But then again, I had no faith in the media and polls to begin with. I see polls as an extension of "he said she said" journalism and find it repulsive just as you do and say in your book. If there's one thing I trust less than politicians, it would be the media's endless parade of "talking heads" ramming their political views down the throats of lock-step "political base" zombies of the who swallow their confabulation like tripe. Thank goodness there's people like Jack and Lou Dobbs who "tell it like it is" rather than blame the failure of polls on the public being racist.
Instead of focusing on polls, focus on the really exciting story of this race. People are out supporting their candidates and voting in higher numbers because there is no clear winner on either side right now. Super Duper Tuesday is coming up and more people that ever believe their vote will really count and are getting out to the polls. Because of this, there is a huge possibility of actually having meaningful nominating conventions–something I haven't seen in my lifetime. Please, start reporting and talking in-depth about this!
As a retired scientist and former college professor I am amazed at the cloud of secrecy drawn over the methodology of the polling process. Measurement is the heart of any accurate analysis. Let me take an example. Suppose you decide to estimate the outcome of an event (election). You decide to sample one hundred voters and make your prediction on that basis. You start calling and, of the one hundred calls made, ten are not answered and five refuse to take part in your poll. This means that you have a fifteen percent uncertainty before you start, as 15 of the called people provided no information. Most polling groups either add more names to the list to get to their one hundred sample or use the results from the eighty five who did respond to estimate the responses of the fifteen on whom they have no information. Either option misstates the results of the final analysis. The proper way to present results is to provide the numbers of the voters who were called and did not take part in the questioning for one reason or the other.
If my experience is any guide, I would estimate that number noncompleted interviews is about fifteen percent or higher. The number people who refused to take part in the survey is particularly important, as these people probably have made up their minds about the questions the poller will put to them, but wish to retain their anonymity.
Put that fifteen percent uncertainty to the Obama/Clinton numbers and the picture changes.......................
Remember, there was a widely used old college text (1960's) called "How to Lie with Statistics".
Keep of the good work. You are the best ten minutes on television.
To paraphrase John Diefenbaker, the 13th Prime Minister of Canada, "Dogs know what to do with 'polls'"
Oh hell, the polls aren't going to be able to predict things in primariies. It's just too screwy. And some states don't even make you state your party affiliation when registering to vote. As in TX. Here, we just register to vote and vote in whatever primary that we should care to vote. They DO tend to frown on it if you vote in more than one primary though. That's a felony charge if they catch you.. But since we don't get to vote till mid March I suspect that it's going to be all over but the balloons by then. That was the way it was in '04. And I don't have any illusions that my vote in the general election for president is going to make one bit of difference either. I mean, GET REAL, I live in TX. And while I hope that this state will eventually become more progessive I don't think that that moment is now or anywhere in the near future. Of course I'll vote. If you don't vote you can't complain. And I AWLAYS reserve my right to complain!
I've never trusted polls because they have proven to be biased and directed towards reaching a desired conclusion. On the other hand, given the fiasco in Florida in 2000, the fiasco in Ohio in 2004, and the known security flaws in the Diebold electronic voting systems, I don't trust that the voting results are accurate either. While we're spreading democracy around the world, what's happened to ours?
Some saying it was Hilary's tears that swayed the female voters. It was so obvious they were rehearsed. The only reason she would pull a stunt like that is because the polls said that she wasn't a very likable candidate. It was basically the polls that told her to act like a nicer person and that hurt her. She lost support because she showed that she may not be tough enough for the job. She lost my support. This is a fine example of how the polls should never be trusted.
The polical pundits would be better off throwing darts at a board. At least they'd be getting some excercise. From my perspective, I'll be more than happy to tell any election pollster anything but the truth. After all, my vote is secret (at least so far).
As for you, Jack, keep up the good work. You are one of the very few news personalities whose opinions I value.
THE CURE TO THE POLLING FIASCO (and fixing what's wrong with our 'democracy'):
RANGE VOTING: grade EVERY option! - just like giving 'grades' on a high-school exam; highest numerical total wins!
ACTUALLy selects "the most generally preferred" candidate or option!
Allows GREATER COMPETITION: Having more candidates that CAN win reduces mudslinging and government stagnation as each partry tries to undermine the other!
ELIMINATES the 'SPOILER' effect (e.g., the Nader/Buchanan 'spoilers' of 2000)!
Undermines the SELF-FULFILLING PROPHESY or 'INTERFERENCE' of polls (Obama/Clinton, N.H. primary)!
Prioritizes ANY NUMBER of prospective leaders OR PROPOSITIONS/REFERENDUMS–ALL AT ONCE!
Can select a WHOLE BOARD of people in just one voting session!
Allows Candidates to owe their allegience to THE PEOPLE instead of 'The Party'(!).
There is more to worry about then how accurate the poles are.
I would equally be concerned the accuracy of the electronic ballot
Academics who teach research know last minute variables and human dishonesty can nullify the best of polling efforts. News media should stop propping their coverage up with late new polls. Americans don't need artificial reasons to care this year. Hello! Long lines to see
historic candidates!@! Do your job and give us clarity on candidate policies and, like the old West Wing show, focus more on the subtle tricks of the political trade, like last minute emotional displays, and you'll get a huge ratings bump. Dig more into candidate words and actions, and earn competitive ratings the time honored way. Jack, like you do with government officials, give the media hell, both local and national, until it gets back to doing what the First Amendment intended our free press to do.
The reason Obama didn't win is simple. ( C N N ) CNN ran the clip of Hillary crying about 100 times in 24 hours. Most of the Obama clips were of him defending himself from false charges my Brother Bill.
It is interesting that Hillary's humanist side was her weak point and that was just the clip that CNN "managed to broadcast both day and night.
Why not show clips of the lady asking Hillary that key question, crying twice while listening to Obama speak, then voting for Obama, not Hillary.
Why not "find" a way of producing that clip. CNN is powerful and was seen all over New Hampshire just in time.
It is time that media report the news, not make it. CNN is 24 hours of news, not 30 minutes and special care should been taken to prevent steering the herd.
Fair is Fair for all, including Hillary. You have been hard on her at times.
The polls should go away. Put the facts out there on where the candidates stand on the issues, air the debates, air the speeches, inform the public of their experience and let the people vote. Polls can cause a voter to NOT vote for a candidate they really align with simply because the polls say that they have no chance of winning. By the way, no one wants to hear what some suit thinks about campaign strategy, either.
JACK, THE POLLS ARE JUST ANOTHER WAY OF MEASURING "WHAT'S HAPPENING, DADDY-O!" WHERE AM I? POLLING MUST TAKE A-LOTTA WORK & GOES TO SHOW THAT: "THINGS AREN'T ALWAYS AS THEY APPEAR. THINGS ARE WHAT YOU MAKE THEM!" LIKE FOR THE CLINTONS, WHITEWATER & OTHER DEALINGS. WITH INFLUENCE AND MONEY YOU CAN AFFORD "SMOKE & MIRRORS!" POLLS BE AS THEY MAY, "BUT YOU CAN'T CHANGE A BAD HEART TO GOOD, YOU HAVE TO BE BORN WITH ONE THAT ALREADY BEATS CLEAR, STEADY & STRONG." A GOOD HEART SOUNDS LIKE THIS, "OBAMA-OBAMA-OBAMA!"
Jack: Everybody needs to take a chill pill here. So they got it wrong once...Name me just one of the high paid so called pundits who can say with certainty that their words of wisdom come down on the side of truth 100% of the time.
Anybody with the IQ of an amoeba knew or should have suspected that this might happen given the variables at work here. It's no biggie...the attention span of the average American is only one news cycle anyway. A little "oops there" once in awhile should be considered normal. What's that old pollster saying? "This poll is correct within plus or minus 4% 19 out of 20 times". You know the rest!
Sault Ste. Marie
I listened to senator obama, not once did he speak to the people he preached to them. the media including cnn and your reporters crowned him the next president, effec tively taking our vote away from us and we resented it. polls are as good as the questions asked!!!
What if the polls were right and the results were wrong? That's a possibility especially after using the hackable Diebold voting machines. You know this too but the media tends to ignore this possibility. Princenton University Technicians have demonstrated this before but nothing has never been done to correct the election vulnerability. The explanation the media is trying to give and blaming it on the pollsters is ridiculous. All the poll results and actual results match for all candidates except for an unexplainable Clinton's 13% gain in 24 hrs. Bush and Clinton are partners, and therefore can share the same strategy used to beat Kerry.
What counts is who count the votes but not who you vote for.........Stalin once said.
after watching the polls say that Al Gore was the President and then it turn around and then say Bush is the President I lost all faith in the polls.
I’m not sure if I’ll ever believe the polls and pundits. I support Barack Obama in South Carolina and I was watching the polls on realpolitics.com and on CNN. I looked at the county by county votes in New Hampshire today and Obama won most of the counties. Clinton picked up bumps and then larger turn outs in about four counties . After the polls closed Jan5th the votes where coming in county by county and the results stayed an incremental 2000-3000 lead for Clinton all night. Because Obama won most of the counties wouldn’t have the live realtime results being reported on CNN have shown steep gains and losses between Clinton and Obama instead of the steady 2000-3000 lead she had all night?
I tell you the great tragedy here are the polls BEFORE the primary polls. I mean, does anyone remember in elementary school when we were asked to "close our eyes" before raising our hands in agreement to something? There was a reason for that! These polls should not be conducted or published by ANY of the media as they implant prejudice among viewers. Can I see a show of hands?
I trust the Zogby poll printed in the WSJ 5/24/07 that said Obama would beat any Republican candidate. You do have to remember that any poll is only a snap shot of a moment in time. Even if the questions are artfully designed to reap the information sought, things and opinions can change in time. What doesn't seem to have changed is how many Americans feel, "Anyone but Hillary."
She is right that we need change and I think she loves this country enough to make sure that we don't chance suffering through another Republican administration. She'll do what Governor Richardson did if she is really listening to the country.
Hi Jack, No I won't and don't believe the "polls" . My wife and I are in our 80th decade and we have never been polled except as an excuse to solict a "donation'. I do believe polls are pap for the uninformed, concieved on a postivistic theme ,to drudge up a pre-determined answer that can subsequently be utilized by the various media to substaniate their pre-determined position.
We Enjoy your comments!! Capt. Stokes
Not only does the New Hampshire Primary show that verbal exit polls are unreliable, but also that unverifiable computerized voting machines are potentially just as unreliable. I'm inclined to question the first and be fearful of the second.
Jeff in Arizona (Computer Consultant)
Jack, I'm more concerned with your reporting of the "demise" of Hillary's campaign than anything. You weren't alone. I also watched Chris Matthews and especially Gloria Borger salivate at Hillary's apparent defeat. That said, I'm definitely in favor of polls done properly, within the usual 4 percent margin. Howevver, I strongly believe that several news organizations, yours included, were trying to shape voter opinion, rather than report the events. New Hampshire already had the reputation of voters changing their minds in the voting booth. Only exit polls would have shown the true results, within 4 percent.
Then, there was the pathetic Fox News organization relishing Hillary's "defeat." But, that was expected of an organization such as it is.
MAX W. DON
The polls can not be trusted (they are conducted in an outdated manner), and besides they are detrimental to the process.
However, the BIG ISSUE is the FRAUD in counting the votes. Electronic voting machines are rigged and many of the people are dis-honest.
Does anyone really beleive that Bush won in 2000???? I mean come on....his little brother was the governer in FL. and Catherine Harris is a fellow CFR member. Why is CNN not exposing the agenda of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and that nearly all Presidential candidates on both sides are members.
Only Ron Paul (R) and Dennis Kucinich (D) can be trusted.
They say if you want to find out which way the wind is blowing, wet you finger and hold up you hand. Polls and Pundits be damned
I have heard so many excuses concerning the polls from the media. How can the polls from New Hampshire be so wrong? Almost a 20 point swing for the democratic party. Who are running the polls ? It almost looks like to me that between the biased media wondering whether Hillary is going to almost cry again, Bill O'Rielly, Chris Mathews and the Obama campaign were the ones running the polls before the election in New Hamshire. As mentioned by your station there was no difference before the election and after the election that the economy was priority for the democrats. 97% in both instances. before and after. So what is the excuse there ??? It almost looks like Hillary Clinton was ahead all along and it was reported incorrectly. Get it together guys and stop trying to downplay a candidate Hillary Clinton. She has the intelligence, experience and has the record to prove it but then again the media is trying to figure out whether she is almost going to cry or how many women is going to vote for her. You know ironically enough men vote too and apparently they made their say quite a bit in New Hampshire.
At this point, I trust the polls more than I trust the hackable Diebold voting machines that were used in 80% of New Hampshire precincts. Harkening back to statistical anomalies in Ohio in 2004 and 2006, according to Black Box Voting (fact check needed) “In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%, which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election.”
John Kerry endorsing Barack Obama. He is only doing that to get back at Hilary for not supporting him for his run for 2004 Presidency like she had planned to. And what is this that all you see is men targeting Hilary. First unions and that is based on a majority of men and now John Kerry. Wow. She must be some kind of threat that you have to have all these men trying to ensure she does not get the democratic ticket. But she will prevail and conquer.
We all know that those who run the poll, control the poll! So if CNN would like to have a Republican president, they will make it look like the democratic favorite will be someone who will probably lose the presidential race. Does that make sense? It does to me! I think we're catching on! Thank God!!!!! The last thing anyone would want is the media choosing the next president
The question is not if we will continue to trust the polls, but if you, the media will trust them. Your emphasis on the polls, especially the talking heads, contributed greatly to public expectations. Maybe we should be asking you this question.
How can you trust the polls? Most are bigoted, and they dont include all the candidates. Every U.S. Citizen has always had the right and the privilege to run
for President of the United States; unless convicted of certain laws. Each of these candidates deserves His/Her chance, an equal chance, dispite how much money they raise or have. But these polls are controlled and supported by big backers who all want there perspective to win. No we cannot trust them. We must all vote our conscience. "We The People" have an obligation and responsibility to maintain our freedom and independence for those who will follow.
I don't care why the polling results were different, AS LONG AS IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF FRAUDULENT VOTING MACHINES!!!
I don't trust polls or the media.Seems like all media outlets are following fox style mis-reporting.
Jack I like you and Lou,that is it!
Not only should polls not be trusted, but also should not be used to make your decision on a candidate. It seems to be that people are hesitant to vote for candidates they are most in favor of if that person is down in the "polls". Polls shouldn't change elections.
I am shocked at how many individuals intentionally mislead pollsters. Where does the average person benefit from lying to a pollster? Why not decline the poll itself and not waste your time lying? Please explain.
Dear Jack, why would anyone trust pollsters. I never have, never will. Also, it did my old heart good to see all you media people on CNN eat your words about Hillary Clinton. I am really tired of the same old crap about women. Did she cry, was it really a tear. Who the hell cares. She is a good person, I said person. Look at her daughter, a wonderful young lady. You think she turned out that way without a mother there. Get real. Also, remember this, Barak Obama is not the second coming all you and especially you have annointed him. Hillary Clinton will be our next President, count on it. Please give her some credit, cause she really deserves more than the Media has allowed itself to acknowledge. Thanks for eating your works on Hillary, made me think a lot better of you as a person.
How can you trust the polls? Most are bigoted, and they dont include all the candidates. Every U.S. Citizen has always had the right and the privilege to run
for President of the United States; unless convicted of certain laws. Each of these candidates deserves His/Her chance, an equal chance, dispite how much money they raise or have. But these polls are controlled and supported by big backers who all want there perspective to win. No we cannot trust them. We must all vote our conscience.
Not only do I distrust polls, I question the wisdom of allowing polls and pundits influence voters. I have reached the point where I turn off the analysts and research the policies and statement by the candidates independently. Why is there such on effort to influence voters by journalists based on polls -instead of analyzing issues, policies, and records?
The pollsters have become nothing more than bookies. They kept extending their "predictive" abilities to the point where a big fat flop was inevitable.
What's shocking is that the press went right along with them.
And these are the people who have the gall to suggest that it's unethical of others to suck up for votes?
What a complete joke.
No wonder they like Obama. Same stripes.
Can someone please correct Gov. Richardson? He just stated that 7 of the last 8 Presidents were governors. I don't remember these as governors – Bush 41, Ford, Nixon, or Johnson. Nixon lost a governor's race.
As to the polls – it is hard to fathom that no one could see they were off. I wrote down my predictions a day before each – Iowa and New Hampshire. I got the top 3 in order in both parties in both states. It's not rocket science. You ought to have me on. I could clearly do better than many of your "pundit" guests.
I think one thing that may have happened is that in addition to late-deciders and heavier Democratic turnout, etc., the margin of error (about 4% in most polls) may simply have broken entirely Hillary's way, giving her up to an extra 4% while also reducing Obama's numbers by a similar margin.
The pundits and those that put trust in them seem to have forgotten one important variable: people. This campaign year is like no other... Those that have had no interest in voting in the past have now answered their wake up call. The pundits and media need to follow suit. No more games... U.S. citizens are taking their responsibility seriously now.
As badly as the media got it wrong about Senator Clinton, creating what could fairly be described as a potential "backlash" vote by the public against gleeful media reports of her demise, there was also the ill effect of the media's coverage towards Senator Obama that has not been addressed.
Senator Obama found himself glorified by the media without ever having crowned himself as the "messiah" some in the blogs have sarcastically referred to him as. Senator Obama was perched up to "inevitable" status following Iowa as a result of "caricature" examinations of his rally's as well as erroneous poll calculations that have yet to find a scientific formula for measuring "prerogative."
Like Senator Clinton pre Iowa, the type of media gratification for Senator Obama leading up to the election results of NH was perverse and beneath the type of neutral, even-handed coverage the public not only expects but needs to avoid feeling insulted by the pundit/poll expectations telling them "how" and "for who" they will vote.
Senator Clinton didn't deserve to be written off before the vote was counted and Senator Obama didn't deserve to be elevated beyond anything more than a candidate in the second contest leading to the Democratic nominee for President.
It is pretty remarkable that every poll got this one wrong, but error is part of polls. They also can't account for voter honesty- I buy the race argument- and turnout. Give Clinton credit for mobilizing her people when she had to. The other big issue is the influence that polls have on elections. I'm sure a lot of Obama supporters saw their man was up 10 and stayed home. Finally, there's the issue of independents. I think most independents would like to see an Obama-McCain matchup in November. When they thought Obama's victory was in hand, they showed up to vote for McCain.
Never did. Polling like that exists to reinforce the popularity contest aspect, and nothing more.
When people ignore the polls, and vote their heart, then maybe we will have honest representation again.
Thanks, Jack. You're still the man, and we won't forget it.
I think the pre-voting polls in states that allow crossover voting is a bad combination because many Independents voted for McCain because they thought Obama was going to win big.
The Poles. The Best Political Team blamed it on The Poles again. You said The Poles got it wrong again. That it such a burden you placed on one group. Rarely does one say the English, the Germans or Irish get it wrong. The Poles get it right more get it wrong. So give my friends from Poland a break. Thank you.
I NEVER DID TRUST THE POLLS THAT THE MEDIA
PUBLISH. I'VE SEEN THE REAL POLLS, WHICH
PUT RON PAUL UP FRONT. AND I DON'T TRUST
THE ELECTRONIC VOTING EITHER. IT LOOKS
LIKE THE N.H. NUMBERS WERE "ADJUSTED"
FROM RON PAUL TO JOHN McCAIN. THE
ESTABLISHMENT WANTS A PRESIDENT WHO WILL
CONTINUE USING OUR MILITARY AND TAX
DOLLARS TO BE MERCENARIES FOR ISRAEL.
THIS COUNTRY IS IN THE TOILET.
I find your coverage of the NH primary suggesting that we must be uneducated closet racists because our numbers did not match the pollsters' to be insulting and infuriating. The Clinton and Edwards campaigns have been present here for at least 6 months and both candidates have been very accessible to the voters . The Obama campaign not so much. Did Edwards lose because you think we're still fighting the Civil War? I'm sick of the media trying to make or break a campaign over some ridiculous thing- a "scream," a tear, or something that happened 30 years ago. Let's just stick to what's really important. If the rest of the nation feel left out, they should be careful what they wish for. They might just get it.
Obama Endorsement: Man, I think it is wonderful! I am a Republican
and I couldn't wish for a better endorsement for Obama! LOL
nancy in Alaska
A big reason why the polls are off is because the media is trying to spin things to their own agenda. So much so that their predictions have become attempts to influence voters rather than objective observations. The media is even spinning the poll numbers. Such predictions will not be accurate.
Last week on Fox news, Shepard Smith shouted down Tom Tancredo rather than let him give his opinion of the candidates.
Sunday, immediately after Fox's focus group overwhelmingly voted Romney the winner of the Republican forum, Fox reporter, Carl Cameron, in a live report, talked about how strong McCain was in the debate and how Romney was having problems.
The media have all been talking up Barak Obama and talking down Hillary Clinton for weeks. They went too far in their spin, and New Hampshire proved it.
AP reporter Laurie Kellman yesterday accused Mitt Romney of innacurately reporting he was ahead in delegates, yet CNN's website shows Romney in the lead with 30 and Huckabee with 21.
Have you noticed Jack that no one is talking about the fact that Romney is in the lead?
South Carolina has almost no delegates, yet the media builds it up as a huge deal. Some media say it's because of SC's predictor abilities. Yet, the Iowa straw poll is suppose to be a good predictor, and no one's talking about how it predicted Romney. The New Hampshire kids vote has been perfect in it's predictions until this year. So how is it that South Carolina is still suppose to be such a great predictor? If the predictors aren't working, why is the media still hyping up South Carolina?
If Romney wins Michigan and loses South Carolina, you watch, the media will all say that Romney is out or dying, and they'll talk up the winner of Iowa, even though Michigan has more delegates than SC, and Romney will be ahead in delegates.
Kerry is a complete loser. He is short-circuiting the democratic process. What ever happened to listening to the people, letting the primaries unfold, vetting new/young candidates?
He is also endorsing someone who is getting incredibly ugly bad press on some conservative web sites where he is called "Hussein" and suspected of being the anti-Christ.
Oh great, Democrats shoot themselves in the foot again? Thanks John Kerry, you're a complete loser!
Its not the pollsters I don't trust, its the pundits including
yourself, who were so gleeful to jump on Hillary's funeral. All your true
feelings came out. The only professional among you was Wolf Blitzer who
Gloria Borger was practically jumping out of her seat for joy at
Hillary's demise. You are the ones who can't be trusted.
I applaud the embarrassment of the polsters. Now, if that failure of the polls in New Hampshire would only inspire journalists to do real coverage of the candidates and issues instead of the lazy horse race reporting that passes for political journaism.
Jack I am ashamed to admit that I am from New Hampshire now. The people here are obviously still brainwashed by the mainstream media. 70% of the people in the country oppose the war. Apparently none of them live here. They just voted for the biggest war monger of them all in mccain. And on the other side is clinton who is the biggest liar and status quo advocate of them all. change my ass.
For a month before the voting began the press was telling us who to vote for and then the polls started telling us who everybody else was voting for.. When the voters decided to vote how they wanted , the press began insulting them "Hillary voters are poor, uneducated and racist. They are voting out of sympathy for the tears. On top of that the press is excusing themselves for being swept of f their feet "its hard when you spend so much time with a candidate not to be swept up in the excitement of their champaign. What has happened to this great democracy where everyone over 18 has the right to vote for whomever they Choose, and the press give us the results, instead of trying to control the results?
To John Kerry
My wife & I are big fans of you and your work. We voted for you in the last election for President and were very disappointed you didn’t win. We recently heard that you support Obama for president and am very upset with this. Why Obama? Hilary has much better credentials and also has an American name. What kind of name is Obama anyway? You had John Edwards as your running mate and you didn’t pick him either. What’s with that? John & Edwards are good American names. Kerry is a good American name But Omar, Obama, are not American and his promises are false.
Obama should watch out, Kerry's endorsement may be a trap.
Why so much talk of the polls? The polls were right. There was no surprise on the Republican side. On the Democratic side Hillary was down and out but she had a good debate that a lot of people watched, she started answering questions instead of making grand speeches, she reached out to voters, she showed she was human, she showed her love for this country, she showed her devotion to her cause and at the last minute people changed their minds and voted Hillary. america sawa different Hillary and decide hey, I like what she stands for, she's got real plans to bring about change and she's human, contrary to how she's painted by Republicans and the news media.
I recently heard that John Kerry supports Obama for president and am very upset with this. Why Obama? Hilary has much better credentials and also has an American name. What kind of name is Obama anyway? Kerry had John Edwards as your running mate and he didn’t pick him either. What’s with that? John & Edwards are good American names. Kerry is a good American name But Omar, Obama, are not American and his promises are false.
Jack, you don't seem to like Hillary too much..
Why do we forget that she was ahead in NH all the time? So IA results simply made the gap smaller..
And considering how much pundits favor Obama and the fact they see the power of the media in influencing specific demographic groups.. why should I believe that polls were fairly done and not a bit biased by searching for those groups that will favor Obama? All its about manipulating voters at this point, its totally irrational.
Obama surely has many qualities and the American public is bored and avid for sensational. He would be perfect in a time of economic prosperity and peace. The reality at this particular time is different and I believe America has to take a very pragmatic approach about who to HIRE to have things done, problems solved one by one in an organized manner. Through hard word. Sorry, this is Hillary.
Jack, I think it is very important....3 million names and addresses....need I go further.
To those that suggested race may have played a part in Act II of the national drama. Well, you are right. Obama's skin color has protected him from the same degree of investigative scrutiny any man his age with an anemic record of experience would have had by now. And, any honest verbal critique in his direction is met by a swat team of protectors yelling "Racism", and "shut up". While Clinton was analyzed up the kazoo for every twitch of her eye, Romney was having to explain his Mormon religion and Hucklebee was apologizing for being a Southern boy, Obama was just waving, smiling, accepting predictions of his "coronation" (EJ Dionne Jr, Washinton Post). Speaking of the Obama crowd, we now know that a large percentage of his adoring public in New Hampshire were actually from Massachusetts, who had driven over to see the show. There's no business like show business, is there!
I just think that the polls were right, because they got it right forevery single candidate, expect for one. It's possible, but sound very strange. Just for me to have a clear mind asking how well was the extra ballot polls checked.
Polls can be usefull and helpfull! In the case of New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton
showed them all wrong with her 'real side'. Proves one thing tho: that democracy is alive and well in the USA!
After New Hampshire I will never trust the polls again!! Are you crazy Jack. Hillary is taken advantage of by the media and by her fellow running mates in the "men's club" just so they can get a few more votes!! People saw that Barack is not ready; he has so little experience he would need a whole team of corrupt advisors like Bush has to do all of his dirty work. If there is one thing that the Cinton's care about the most it is image- Hilary wil not let that go to waste by having a bad presidency!
wow jack ,
you mean people actually believe polls? who responds to polls ? unemployed,nothing to do today, college kids who won't vote anyway, people! to err is human.
nothing to do jeff , call me i would like to participate in polls :)
Trust? Trust is irreverent, I doubt most of us really trust the media, but we do go along with it.
We don't really have a choice; the media can choose what to highlight or report on, and from there we base our limited opinions off what the media chose to report on.
Most of us are simply sheep with loud voices. We can vocalize our own opinion all we want, but in reality, that opinion is driven from the narrow option of all we know, FROM THE MEDIA; meaning our opinion is what we make of the media's reports whether we like it or not.
Do we trust the media? Not much, but do we have a choice? No.
Once again, only through the media, is what we know what's happening in the world.
Polls are for people who are interested in voting for the person who will more than likely win. But the news media is an invaluable tool to every American who knows how to form their own opinions once they have the facts. Without broadcasts like The Cafferty File and Lou Dobbs, who tell it exactly like it is regardless of what special interest group throws a hissy fit, we would be left to believe only what this President, our wonderful Congress and this special group of Presidential hopefuls feed us. We may not agree with the media all the time and you may not always be right but without you Americans are screwed.
I think the senator's endorsement to Barack Obama is very important for its another road to hope and change in American society. Not only that is it important to Obama, but Its an opportunity to seek intervention to bring the American people together. I believe that this endorsement will however, open doors to unity in this nation.
I never did in the first place, so why would I know?
Why is no one reporting on the raw exit poll data??? Chris Matthews let it slip that the exit polls had Obama leading by 8%. In hand counted precincts (20%), Obama prevailed. While in Diebold machine counted precincts, Hillary prevailed. Isn't this information at least worth mentioning and investigating?
Notice that Kerry never once mentioned what Obabma stands for, only shouted change over and over.
I think we don't have many Statisticians (I'm not sure if it is the right word). If I am not mistaken, the latest CNN poll before NH primary showed Obama at 39% and Clinton at 29% with the margin of error of 5. In Statistics, any overlap shows no difference. You can see both could overlap at 34%. Obama was not leading. In addition, those polls were based on sampled voters. There is no way that the sampled voters are representatives of NH population. The polls were projected to the NH population from the sampled voters. I am suspecting the polls bases were the young college students. There are ways to reduce such errors but may be costy.
WOLF BLITZER YOU SMEARED RON PAUL FOR
THE ENTIRE HOUR. YOU COULD HAVE CHECKED
THIS INFORMATION WITH RON PAUL OFF THE
AIR. I HOPE HE SUES YOU FOR SLANDER.
GUESS WHO WON'T BE WATCHING YOUR SHOW
ANY MORE AND I WILL MISS IT BECAUSE I WATCH
EVERY NIGHT. I'LL STILL WATCH LOU DOBBS.
BUT NOT YOU. I'LL BE WATCHING CHRIS MATTHEWS.
YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE
DOUBT BEFORE YOU TALKED ABOUT IT ON THE
AIR. SENSATIONALISM IS WHAT YOU DID AT
RON PAUL'S EXPENSE. SHAME ON YOU.
I KNOW HOW LIBERTARIANS THINK BECAUSE I
AM A LIBERTARIAN MYSELF. YES, I TOO THINK
ALL NON-VIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS SHOULD
BE PARDONED AND RELEASED. AND IF I WASN'T
VOTING FOR RON PAUL, I'D BE VOTING FOR
BARACK OBAMA. I'M GLAD HE DIDN'T GO TO
PRISON FOR DOING DRUGS BECAUSE HE HAD
A CHANCE TO SALVAGE HIS LIFE AND SUCCEED.
I AM 71 YEARS OLD AND LET'S GET SOMETHING
STRAIGHT, I HAVE NEVER TAKEN DRUGS AND
I DON'T EVEN DRINK OR SMOKE. I AM SO DIS-
GUSTED. I DO BELIEVE THE ELECTRONIC
VOTING IS RIGGED. I'M SICK ABOUT IT.
I HATE TO THINK ABOUT THE CONDITION OF
THIS COUNTRY FOR MY CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN. BE FAIR TO RON PAUL.
HE IS A GOOD MAN.
Jack,First off,I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughtful and honest observations on your segments of The Situation Room.You,Sir,are a brave man and I'm sure that I am not alone in admiring your candor in this age of corporate controlled mass media.But I think that todays question should have been"How can we trust election results anymore ?"
After all,allegations of possible fraud in the tabulation of the New Hampshire primary concerning both parties have been running rampant on the internet for 2 days now,without any coverage by You or any of your peers in the MSM.Several websites are talking about the almost complete flipping of votes from Obama to Clinton in the primary vote count as opposed to the polling stats prior to and exiting the voting booths using the Diebold machines.There has also been a story about a confirmed case of a miscount in Sutton Township,resulting in Ron Paul losing 31 votes.another story alleges that the man in charge of tallying all of the electronic votes is a convicted felon.Shouldn't these stories warrant at least some reportage in the MSM?
I don't trust the pollsters, the pundits or any of the television personalities anymore. All of you are biased when it comes to politics. No one reports the news, everyone "spins" it. When the AP called NH for Hillary Clinton, CNN waited at least 20 minutes longer to declare her the winner. Why? Because you didn't want to admit you were wrong? Shame on all of you.
Is it just me or is this also a poll? How does one take a community poll about whether or not people trust polls, and still claim to have some amount of journalistic professionalism. Is this what the media has come to?
Perhaps Clinton employed some of the Bush vote counters. People want four more years of the Bush/Clinton/Bush years? Here you go.
The polls were almost right, Obama won 9% more deligates in NH than Clinton.
You should tell your viewers that the popular vote does not determine elections in our country, deligate count does.
Since when did the office of president become a popularity contest.??
We had that rah, rah, cheerleading crowd that elected Bush and he had no experience that qualified him for president, only his cronies. My life was 100
percent better when Clinton was president, believe me and I think with Hillary
has much experience and contacts that I think makes sense...
I've been a political junkie and read everything , sure wish voters would do the same this time, for my sake I'm 73, folks..
Trust the polls? I don't care what the polls say. I don't vote on what polls say. I don't vote of the basis of celebrity endorsements. I think the polls are just tools for media hype and candidates campaign director to study.
Candidate Clinton loses one election in one state and essentially falls apart . Her husband goes on a blame rampage and no one takes this into voting consideration?? Well, I do and she has lost her vote from me. Thank you, Jean Chrisite
I think the problem here isn't the polls or even the polling methods but the importance given the polls by the media. The polls only tell part of the story and were those numbers taken in an appropriate context a poll or indeed all polls not accurately predicting the future wouldn't be viewed as such a betrayal. I will trust polls exactly the same as I did before, which is only to a certain logical point. They tell you what a certain group of people think at a particular time but that is subject to change as well as the methodology of the poll. Frequently people without land lines, those who only have cell phones or too poor to have a phone, are not polled. People need to be home at a certain time to be reached, these people have to agree to provide their opinions – those 3 factors alone limit the diversity of the pool you select from. It's not wrong or flawed methodology, it's just the reality of polls than many pundits seem to have forgotten. Polls are a single data point in a mosaic. Even if you had all the possible data points, hard and soft, you still couldn't accurately predict what will happen otherwise I'd make a killing betting on political contests. I think many pundits (present company excluded) rely too heavily on polls and take them as hard indisputable facts but these "facts" need to be filtered with common sense and educated, informed, and in-depth analysis.
Watching the polls makes sense, but relying on them to decide whom to vote for does not. Polls are not definitive, no one can predict the future, no matter how many (or few) people are asked their opinion.
Oh yeah, I can believe the polls. The polls were right, the voting results were wrong. Diebold stole the election from Barrack Obama and Ron Paul.
I must admit, I am incredibly ashamed of the lack of respect the media gave to Governor Bill Richardson. Yourself and the media turned your heads to focus on two and sometimes three candidates. How could anyone deny his well rounded experience? He took strong stances on the war in iraq, education, immigration, energy, and our nations veterans... For all of the republican nuts, it should have made them happy that he's a border governor! He turned a state around and has moved it in the right direction. He is a highly intelligent human being who also has a wonderful personality. He's an international negotiator, which none of the other "top tier" candidates could tout. Five nobel peace prize nominations... I could go on forever. Shame on you. Shame on the media. And shame on the early states electorate for not giving Bill Richardson a fair shot.
There are these questions I will like to underscore to mrs Clinton, firstly, after taking so much more from the lobists, how will you fight for the interest of the American people as opposed to the interest of the lobists when it comes to restructuring the broken health care system? Secondly, being the president of The United State is the most difficult and the most challenging job in the World, how will you withstand the challenges when you become the president of the United State if you could portrayed that you are weak in emotions? Does it mean you will be crying any time you faces challenges?
New Hampshire has this idea that it has to be different. The residents saw that Obama was winning, and decided to go for Clinton. It's another New Hampshire anomaly.
If something changes the minds of voters, then no media is capable to change their minds.
What is the record that supports Hillary Clintons' experience? She has consistently exclaimed her experience; however she never articulate it.
She is the former first lady of Arkansas and of the USA. What did she do as the first lady for the state of Arkansas or for this country? Does being married to a political figure make one a politician. Does the experience transfer?
She is the senator from New York, but the first lady of a former Arkansas governor. What has she done for the residents of either states?
She stated (after New Hampshire) that she has found her voice. Well, what voice was she using in Iowa and whose voice is she using in Michigan.
She states she has the experience to reach across party lines; however as first lady those on the opposite side of the lines from her husband moved to impeach him. Where was she and how did her experience thwart that?
What legislation has she sponsored since elected? She says she has the experience to get the job done. This is based on what?
Please show the record that supports the experience.
Although she worked towards Richard Nixon's impeachment, she did not lead the committee. She did not govern Arkansas.
Is she chairing a committee as senator? What is her experience.
Yes I will trust the polls if last minute voters do not change their minds because of moral reasoning instead of logical reasoning (Hilary Cried)!!
The polls were off because the college students who would have voted for Obama were on vacation. Few analysts realised this.
Wake up people, we will NEVER have a fair and accurate election until something is done about the failed US voting system. Have you forgotten what happened to Al Gore in 200 and John Kerry in 2004??? Is it not possible that the same thing has happened in New Hampshire??? Think about it!!!
What happened Tuesday? ... Two words – VOTING MACHINES. (Remember the irregularities with those machines during the last New Hampshire primary?) ... The people with the connections to Diebold and the apparent access to manipulating these machines are those on the Republican side. It was clear that they did not want to have to go up against "a movement" or "a tidal wave," such as the Obama campaign in November. So they sent in the computer program to tweak the machines in favor of Clinton. (Wasn't it interesting how she maintained a steady 2-4 point lead the entire night?) Plus, the results from precincts that did not use the machines were in favor of Obama, while the ones that did use those machines showed up as favoring Clinton.
I simply ignore the polls, and i keep wandering- who did they poll? I really think they should just let us go through the elections and then know the winner or loser than giving us unfounded predictions.
The polls are for the pundits who are nothing but armchair quarterbacks that decide the game before it is played. Elections are for us – the citizzens who decide the actual outcome. If there is anything called false hope, the polls raise them.
Most pundits are motivated by ego, money and power. Their opinions are biased. If you listen, take them all with a grain of salt and a good sense of humor. Polls are manipulated and spun! Listen closely to the candidates, and do your own research. Don't let someone else do your thinking for you. Vote with your heart and mind.
This is a race and gender election. Some people won't vote for a woman, and some people won't vote for an African American. Do we still have racism in Amerca? Yes, we do! Do we still have male chauvinism and patriarchalism in America? Yes, we do!
Change will begin to happen when our hearts are transformed. This takes someone bigger than a politician.
We will know something is really happening in America when the media and the blogs reflect constructive dialogue.
We will know something is happening in America when we respect each other. We will know something is happening in America when the hungry are fed, the homeless are housed, the children are educated and the elderly, the sick and the environment are cared for. We will know something is happening in America when our neighbors next door and around the world know we care by our words and our actions.
The sad truth is many of the pundits who have the power to influence, also speak/write a position/theory with little or no factual basis.
It's one thing to be wrong and yet another to be insistant in your failure to be correct, intentionally!
Many of these self titled "analysts" are claiming the polls were correct, it was everything else, inlcuding the voter who was wrong. Is this not adding insult to injury? Would they get away with this in any other group or demigraphic? They are attacking the women voter once again with the claim this time that she was "hiding" or "dishonest".
HELLO! READ THE EXIT POLLS for yourself. They offer the explanation. LOOK WHAT HAPPANED IN THE LAST TWO DAYS other then the only thing being reported repeatedly (Hillary's tears) there was a strong debate which was repeated the following night . Lots of news interviews with attacks being thrown from both sides including the Clinton camp. Bills attack speaches at places like Dartmouth College on primary day.
Also, why aren't the local polls being discussed? Local NBC affiliate came in with a poll that was much closer to what played out. The exit polls are consistant with the count of who was behind their candidates from vairious timelines including those who jumped on at the end and why.....the majority of late deciders who claimed the last debate convinced them. Why is that hard to believe? Claiming there was more to it is like saying the US government was behind 9-11, but this one doesn't even have any smoke.
Pollsters are nothing but pimps hustling for their street walkers.
Asking people, "After New Hampshire, Will You Trust the Polls Again?" is fundamentally operating under the assumption that most people take the polls seriously and put a lot of stock in them; a few of us out here take them with a grain of salt, or as "entertainment" before the real votes are tabulated and reported. Any voters that would seriously be swayed by poll results before voting themselves are voting in an irresponsible manner, and need to arrive at their own personal candidate selection after researching the candidates' positions.......
Why did Obama win the election in Iowa, a 95% white state, where ballots are hand-counted? Why did Obama win the hand-count in New Hampshire but lost with the optical scanning machines provided by Deinbold?
The recent media explanation states that a portion of undecided voters did not participate in polls and shared different views than what was reflected in those polls. So, either these voters did not have a computer to participate in online polls, or a telephone, and were not interested in sharing their opinion either way. It seems these individuals would als not be interested in voting in the election either. This debunks this weak explanation.
Can we ever trust election "results" again???
There have been serious allegations of vote tampering via Diebold, but somehow they just don't get talked about by "mainstream" media types. Instead you want us to believe in an overnight voter flipout.
Dream on, cowardly hacks- dream on.
Every time I see the polls on T.V I always say who are they polling?
Polls don't equal results, in fact they are just as likely to change results by encouraging people who were having a "my vote isn't all that important moment" because there candidate was supposed to win big.
Since the vote is secret, polls are the only measure you have. How do you know the votes are counted correctly, or even counted at all? If you get rid of the polls while the vote is done in secret, then nobody would really have any measure as to whether the vote was fair. This is why exit polls in particular are extremely important, and why we need to start asking questions when people are casting votes on electronic voting machines and the totals don't match what people are saying. Ron Paul got zero votes recorded in Newe Hampshire, even though an undetermined number of people did vote for him.
Throw away the polls and you might as well just have some guy in a back room deciding who the president is.
The polls asked independents.....and independents can't vote in a primary. That certainly would make a difference in the numbers. Too bad NH isn't a caucus state....then all votes/voices would count.
I think the polls were right. The problem was the back door racism remarks that Brother Clinton made. And CNN showing Hillary crying. Those two are very power hungry. I realized something at that moment. Clinton has done more for blacks then other presidents but we took that bone and ran with it because we were hungry for someone to pay attention to our needs. They is so much more that needs to be done. We need self development in our city schools, We need parent programs that will help us develop ourselves to get rid of the under class so the violent would stop in our communities. We need programs that will help us develop inside out. Not feed us , we need to feed ourselves. So personal I do not think he did us any favors. I also feel that Clinton is the cause of Corporations outsourcing to other countries, which is one of the reason the middle class is dying.
I feel like America has a problem with a Black man being president. This is a shame. We make good sport players. We did the first heart surgery, we create blood plasma, we even designed Washington DC. But when some seem that Obama could win, they pulled their resources to vote him out. That is what happen.
Get what. If the Iowa and NH was the final choice on who would be president, He would win. As a matter of fact. He did not lose at all. Hillary did not win by a sweeping victory, she won by the skin of her teeth. I guess now she will cry her way to the White House. Ex Pres Clinton will be dealing with female interns and she will cry when the going gets tough
Did you happen to see the GOP debate last night? If so, then you know that the American texters chose the rightful winner, Ron Paul, the invisible candidate. How long can the media keep this guy out of the mouths of these so called "professional" analysts? He did so good last night that the foxnews website forgot to put his picture up with the other 5 candidates this morning? Is there something wrong with hearing more of what the American people really want to hear?
I think this election is not like all the others, polls are not going to be accurate. I also feel there is a GOOD chance of vote tampering with the Diebold machines still being used. Here in South Carolina they are still using those machines I will be using a paper ballot. I will never understand why people cannot just wait to see the real results.
This will be the most exciting election in many many years of dull elections where the same old establishment idiots get re-elected and nothing changes except some of the dirty tricks used to win.
Obviously you don't believe that hogwash you just said.
Paper counted votes showed a complete difference in the results compared to machine counted votes.
This is not an election, it is a play.
And you, sir, are just playing your part.
Two days before the New Hampshire primary elections Barack Obama, whom I do not support, was leading Hillary Clinton in every poll taken across the state including Hillary's own campaign polls. His lead was anywhere from 11 to 14 percent and growing depending upon the poll. All the tracking polls indicated he was gaining momentum out of Iowa and would win with a sizeable double digit lead. New Hampshire is generally more liberal than Iowa. All the exit polls taken on Tuesday indicated Barack was winning with about 10 percent of the vote. The largest city in New Hampshire, Manchester, which is home to thousands of college age students most of whom showed strong support for Obama oddly enough was won by Clinton. In fact her margin of victory in Manchester was such that Obama needed to win a very strong percentage of the vote in the smaller and more conservative communities and rural areas of New Hampshire just to get within 2 percentage points of Clinton which he did, thus indicating that all the polls showing him gaining momentum throughout the state were correct. The smaller communites and rural areas of New Hampshire were Obama's weaker polling areas yet Barack did better in these precincts than Hillary. But not in Manchester where he would have had his best showing according to the polls there. It is quite obvious that the comeback kid results in New Hampshire were engineered by vote fraud. They got to the voting machines in Manchester and flipped the vote. Hillary was credited with Barack's votes and vice versa. This reversed vote percentage in Manchester precisely mirrored what the polls indicated was Obama's lead over Clinton in Manchester the day before the primary election. How very strange it is that the repulican polls that were done by all of the exact same polling companies and by the same methods and pollsters were almost exactly correct, but for some strange reason not the democratic polls. I think everyone should be talking about this strange primary result, which was desperately needed in order to save Hillary's chances anywhere else except New York. If she had lost New Hampshire by the decisive margins the polls said she was going to her bid for the presidency would have been effectively over. Barack would have rolled into Nevada, Michigan and South Carolina with to much momentum and credibility to stop him from winning big on the next big primary date super tuesday.
Amazing how the most important function of our nation's constitutional and democratic premise has been completely destroyed and no one is even talking about it including the media. This is why.
Fort Hood, Texas
I don't think that the problem lies with New Hampshire voters. The problem could very well be with America. President Bush said we are in Iraq to liberate that country, but how can we do this or even think of doing anything with any other country when we still can't decide rather we can vote for an African American in this country. If we aren't united how in world are we going to try and unite some other country?
The Clintons brought in about 6,000 people from New York and Massachusetts to claim they were going to move to New Hampshire and register to vote on election day. This is legal, but it is nonetheless tampering with an election.
All of the pre-election polls showed Barack Obama running away with the election and having a several thousand plurality. So, the Clinton machine went to work and they overwhelmed the system.
Jack, you and the news media need to stop endorsing one candidate and play fair. I do not trust the polls, I do not trust the voting system. This is the 21st century let's move forward. A woman President would be a huge change for this country, maybe we wouldn't be looked at as 3rd rate country, that we have become. I as a female gender over 60 have observed the downfall of our country, need I ask who has been in charge.
Where in the bible does it say, women have the right to own property? to think? but, always be submissive. I personally do not understand the women of this country if they do not do some research and thinking on their own and not allow someone to think for them.
Hillary is intelligent, experienced and is willing to work for us, if I am wrong and she is the the nominee, I will not vote for the first in over 40 some odd years. I will not vote for an inexperienced person like Obama. Bush had no experience and look at the state we are in.
I don't think any poll is perfect however; isn't it strange that all the polls were so drastically off. Does it make you a conspiracy cornball to question, if maybe, the vote count is inaccurate? I've read 80% of N.H. uses those infamous Diebold voting machines. I remember CNN covering how easy it is to hack one. Our democracy depends on you looking deeper.
The recount will open a can of worms the media don't want opened and that is why the Ron Paul media smear is underway. It will not help. If anything it will make Ron Paul supporters stronger. We all know the media are parrots and puppets. We all know except for the sheep that still listen to this propaganda. But they will wake up real soon!!!!!
The media was worse. When are they going to learn? It is the economy ... not CHANGE
I feel that the polls taken before an election and the exit polls after should not be
put on TV. It seems to me that people see thier candidate in the bottom of the polls and they think that candidate can't win and consiquently they decide they're not going to vote.
It's bad for the candidates and the American people.
The Polls in this campaign cycle on the Democrat side will not be accurate because those answering are going to be less than truthful to avoid being labeled as racist.
Today I went into a local Coffee House where discussion of the primary contest was in full swing. When asked who I would be voting for I said Hillary. the response from several patrons was "I never thought of you as being a racist". It never crossed my mind that a vote for Hillary was a racist act.
So the caucuses will swing to Obama because you might be labeled racist to vote for anyone else and the private ballot to Clinton. The polls in the states without caucuses will rarely be accurate because who wants to be labeled racist for voting for Hillary...
In truth they should have called me sexist as I supported Shirley Chisholm in 1972.
New Hampshire wants the wife of an impeached President in the White House. New Hampshire thinks it is appropriate to google up your leaders under the terms like; scandals, clintongates, vince foster, etc . Something has gone terribly wrong in New Hampshire.
I have been trying to reconcile in my own mind this emphasis on "experience" as far as this nomination process.goes. Everyone gains experience along life"s path, and those who are younger obviously have less. However, when one is running for the Presidency, unless you have been president, you have no experience being president. Mrs Clinton 's claims of experience is simply taking credit for her husband's tenure in the White House. If sleeping in the White House is presidential experience, then all the people who slept in the Lincoln bedroom can also claim"White House experience". Mr Obama on the other hand is inviting all Americans to "turn the page" and move forward by working together. God knows America needs CHANGE and Obama is the right messenger. No one in America elected Hilary Clinton to the presidency, but I have to say that the Clintons have already served their two terms. Can they not leave the stage quietly?
Now tnat they are headed to South Carolina, it was O.K for the honorary black king to rule the roost. But now that an authentic black prince has emerged, all the king can think of is to tear him down. Lord have mercy!!
Clinton camp hype is that Hillary took the lead back in NH.
Arithmetic says otherwise. The average of 1st and 3rd is 2nd – from white states .
Barack Obama starts ahead in South Carolina . If he wins with black vote support, or is even second, arithmetic favors him for now.
I trust the polls. I don't trust convicted felons in charge of hackable voting machines. How did all of you miss the big red flag?
Amazing how the media shapes our lives. Good bye America!
It's not the polls its the electronic voting machines .... they have been proven hackable, remember ohio yea people went to jail over that.. if we want honest elections we have to get rid of the electronic voting machines and fix the problem of who counts the votes ......
Polls are the least of the problem. What about the counting of the votes. Where is the transparency in that.
Even though the polls are controlled by mainstream media I trust them more than I trust the diebold machines. There has already been accusations of voter count fraud in New Hampshire. If it is not stopped now, then the "status quo" candidates will be nominated. Remember how bush was selected not once but twice? Why does the media keep it's head in the sand and not report the truth?
I'm not so sure the polls were wrong! When 40% of Democrat voters entered the voting booths undecided! The polls did not take into account this large group of voters, accordingly the +/- factor was flawed.
I trust the polls.. some.. its the vote I'm worried about.
Good work Jack keep it up..i'm looling for some experience can anyone tell me where or how to get it..i can't find the damn thing anywhere, the shelves are all empty...oh sorry i'll check with Sen. Clinton and see where she got hers. By the way is it possible to have the senator explain what she meant by, Quote "i just don't want to see us fall backwards'. And then tell the American people how far ahead America is.
I stopped trusting them back when they declared Al Gore president because of exit polls.
1. Point out that the Republican Party wants Clinton to win. Why? Because they don’t think they can beat Obama.
2. Obama is half white and half black. Why does the press always refer to him as black? By doing so, he is stereotyped in a negative manner. Why not refer to him as a white American and skip the Black inference.
Note to Jim Russell:
Obama refers to himself as Black.
He took drugs to reconcile/crush the white half
Sadly He stereotyped himself the press had nothing to do with it
Frankly I don't give a damn about polls. They have no effect on how I vote. I do my own homework on the canidates and vote according to their experience and moral values. I only wish more Americans would do the same and stop depending on the media and Hollywood to choose for them.
Why has CNN not reported on the vote recount requested by Kucinich? I had to go to the internet to find out from the AP that the vote recounts should start next Wednesday. That should be plenty of time for the "powers that be" to doctor the paper ballots to match the possibly hacked machines...... The countries trust in our voting system is beginning to fail. This story broke yesterday and CNN has yet to cover it – one has to ask why????? It seems FoX isn't the only one with an agenda other than the truth. Fox's debate questions were obviously biased towards Dr. Paul and the audience reacted accordingly. Based on head shakes and scouring expressions, people in the audience were obviously disgusted. I hope CNN doesn't continue to follow down the path of Fox's faux news. I'll be watching!
I don't understand why everyone gets so up in arms about the polls. They aren't accurate, they never have been. It's all about getting people interested, excited, and playing armchair politics. It's the equivalent of talking all the angles before a boxing match; say what you like, no one ever sees the right hook out of nowhere.
As I watch the evening news every day and I see how far down the toilet we have taken this country since the 60s, I can understand why the two party system is a joke. The Dems are kissing the rear ends of people who already have special laws made just for them so why should they play the game. (Hillary will win on the Dem side) Caucasians in this country Dem or otherwise do not respect people who have special laws and rules made just for that group of people so they will not vote for minorities especially on a national level. Now, if the powers within the socialist fabric of our government that run everything can somehow bring themselves to do away with the divisive laws and rules such as so called civil rights laws (passed against Southern States only), Affirmative Action Laws (passed against all others except Africans) and quota systems (same as AAL) then maybe we can get on to the business of working together in this country. But that may not happen because radicals on both sides would have nothing to gain by creating peace and cooperation between the people of this country.
Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to tell the truth and if truth trumps everything else in this world then perhaps the people will see the light before we get more of the SOS.
Trust the Polls- Yea I am sure Ron Paul trust the Polls! Ha Ha
I find it amusing that the news media, after introducing the issue of race on the night of the New Hampshire primary as a way of explaining how they got it so wrong, are now trying to cover their tracks with this MLK/Johnson thing. You guys brought the issue forward as an explanation for the Clinton's victory and now you are looking for cover. What ever happened to just reporting or commenting on the news instead of making it? Here's a suggestion: since the black man got the vote before the white woman, do you think this is all payback? There you go ... use this to inflame the gender issue the same way you used New Hampshire to inflame the racial issue and watch what happens to your ratings. Damn the country of course but what the heck...ratings will go up.
I never have trusted the polls.
Look at how Hillary was beaten in Iowa?
As a Florida resident, I'm concerned about a Quannipiac University NY poll (Q...where?) that says Hillary is in the lead.
I don't see it.
I live in Florida–and do not know a single Democratic candidate who was called or canvassed by anybody from Q.....? University in New York. Are they just calling Palm Beach County?
The polls are for the birds. The only polls worth paying attention to are the ones where individual voters go to exercise their democratic duty.
I think the gov'ernments idea of raising a gas tax of $.40/gallon over 5 years is rediculous. The economy is already in big trouble with the trickle down effect of gasoline so they want to add more burdens to the middle class. With the way government operates and thinks soon there woudn't be a middle class and who will pay the bills.
Maybe when George Bush and his adminstration retreat from office they can all go and live with their friends in Saudi Arabia, after all they have nice sandy beaches and I think they even have oil drilling facilities.
John in Florida
Jack Cafferty sounds off hourly on the Situation Room on the stories crossing his radar. Now, you can check in with Jack online to see what he's thinking and weigh in with your own comments online and on TV.
About Jack Cafferty
Subscribe | Send Feedback