Download | Play 
Download | Play
Keith Olbermann talked with Craig Crawford today on Countdown about the polling nightmare surrounding yesterday’s New Hampshire Democratic primary. Crawford proposes that it wasn’t the polls or the polling itself, it was the reporting and interpretation of them that led to the fiasco. The pundits got lazy and chose not to fully dig through the nuts and bolts of the numbers which resulted in highly skewed predictions.
In terms of the actual polling data, many of the polls hit the vote percentage for Obama very close to his actual tally. The one issue that was overlooked was the undecided vote — the majority of which, went for Clinton. Add to that, Chris Matthews’ three ring circus, FOXNews attacks and outright lies surrounding the New Hampshire primary and it made for the perfect storm…
Filed Under: Barack Obama, Campaigns/Elections, Democratic Party, Election 08, Hillary Clinton
No Trackbacks To “Countdown: New Hampshire Poll Nightmare - Was It The Polling Or The Reporting?“
Yes, we can.
when I saw the name Craig Crawford….I thought Cindy…………mmmmm……donuts.
What the hell? Who doesn’t look at the undecided vote when analyzing poll data? I’m a 28-year-old newspaper editor and I know that.
it was neither polling nor the reporting. it was the vote counting.
Somebody on another thread said something that rang true with me…..KO has never awarded Worst Person dishonors on anyone from MSNBC….Tweety,Timmeh or Tucker surely would be good candidates……
*All the polls ….ASUME….the people polled are telling the truth when polled.
It was RACE stupid!
The reality in America is that there is still an anti-black vote lingering with enough of the electorate to make a difference. If New Hampshire had been an open caucus, as in Iowa, I’d bet the results would have matched to polls. But when people get behind that curtain, there are still 5-10% that will not vote for a candidate that they’ll tell pollsters is acceptable: based strictly race.
Obama may be helping to reduce that %, but America just ain’t quite there yet. Maybe by 2012.
As a black man , I can handle behind-the-curtain racism, but not hackable machines. At least the former is still the voter’s choice.
Can we get paper ballot recounts?
Obama’s total was right on with the polls. The Village Idiots simply did not do their jobs and interpret that there was still a sizeable chunk of undecideds. I would not comment at this time on whether the Diebold machines were hacked. But they ARE completely unreliable.
Maybe off topic, but Keith (my hero) owes Hillary an applogy along with everyone else in the MSM. They, as journalists, blew it. Brian Williams wrote an interesting essay on the subject. Posted on NBC.
They’ll pull anything out of their asses just so they don’t have to tackle the real issue here, Voter Fraud.
“The voters lied to us”
“The polls were wrong”
“The pundits were wrong”
“it was a racial thing”
“The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it”
I can tell you what happen with one word….
Diebold.
Ah, can’t spell good (well). Sorry.
The polls are wrong because of possible fraud.
http://prisonplanet.com/articl....._fraud.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ar.....ounted.htm
Naw, the polling and the reporting were great.
It was the voting that fu*ked things up.
squiggs @ 12:
Shhhhhhhh…..now…that is just a conspiracy…..
Below is a link that shows Hilla(R)y did better, and Obama worse, on “E” machines compared to hand counts.
METHOD - HILLA(R)Y vs OBAMA, by %
E Machines: 39.6 - 36.3
Hand Count: 34.7 - 38.8
‘Unknown’: 45.3 - 30.6
In fact, EVERYONE BUT HILLA(R)Y lost votes to “E machines.
Hilla(R)y’s “E” count was up 4.892% a total of 14,068 votes over hand counts. Obama’s “E” count was down -2.497% a total of -7,181 votes, for a total differential of 21,249 votes, by this analysis. The “Actual” official vote count difference between Hilla(R)y and Obama, the “actual” margin of ‘victory’, was only 7,525!
Exit Polls, “THE METHOD” used around the world to verify the validity of ‘Actual’ counts, gets reversed in the USA. In Ame(R)ica, ‘Actual’ counts are used to verify or p(R)ove Exit Polls, it seems!
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
Snerd
I don’t think there was anything off about the polling.
It was so obviously Hillary’s puddle of crocodile tears that came over NH’s women population.
Edwin @ 14:
DIE-BOLD. With a vengeance!
the economic nightmare about to strangle the US economy is another good reason
to [deleted]
Keith Olbermann should be ashamed of himself. I thought this man had some integrity but his mean and snide self came out of the woodwork once Clinton lost in Iowa. The legitimate points that both Bill and and Hillary raised about Obama in NH after Iowa were being ridiculed by Keith. What a shame? This is the man who only a couple of months ago was kissing the Clintons’ ass to be able to interview them on his show.
But he isn’t alone in this. Arianna Huffington is in the same league. This is a woman who has gotten this far only because she married up, way up and not just once. And she’ll go around spreading the narrative that she is an immigrant from a middle class family in Greece. She is and she is smart too. So are many other women. But they are not where she is. And she goes around posing as a meritocratic progressive who dislikes connections and dynasties and what not when her own success in America is just because of that. Just look at her latest post on Hillary where she snidely refers to her husband as her ‘ running mate, Bill .’ Her own writing and along with the sensational stories featured on her blog are quickly making Huffingtonpost into the Drudgereport of the left. And if one is to go by the comments on that blog then it’s obvious that people are on to her.
BradBlog has quite a bit on this today:
http://www.bradblog.com/
Nobody is addressing the obvious red flags. I don’t know what happened or didn’t happened, but they used the Diebold machines which have been proven to be easily hackable. I don’t care who wins as long as the person deserves to win, and won by a system that works. But, if the poll numbers were right on the money for all except one person (who got a pretty good bump), then we should be able to look at that and make sure there is no monkey business going on with our elections process. If we lose the integrity of our election process, then we lose our Democracy. Plain and simple.
Were the polls THAT far off? And for only one person? We as Americans have to be able to trust the system. It has already been demonstrated that these voting machines make the system very vulnerable. With the numbers being THAT far off, we should be able to look at the results and figure out why. With these machines, there is no way to check. No paper trail, and no looking in the machines themselves. Even worse, we have handed over our election process to private corporations that aren’t accountable to our government or oversight. This is wrong.
dadams @ 20:
oops, wrong placement of comment–but still a good comment
Che’s Lounge: “… I would not comment at this time on whether the Diebold machines were hacked. But they ARE completely unreliable.”
SG: The problem with hacked Diebold is tow fold: One they are completely (R)e-Lie-able and two, there is no need to hack them, they are already (R)e-Lie-ably programmed to create (R)esults.
Snerd
Richardson dropping out?
polling? reporting? diebold? polling numbers on edwards were spot on. obama supporters changed withing hours after hillary’s much advertised tear-up … i believe it …
Soft Stalinism/fascism
In other words, the undecided vote wasn’t so undecided.
Why are the mainstream blogs ignoring the voting irregularities? Just because something IS a conspiracy doesn’t mean you’re nuts to believe it’s a conspiracy.
Check the discrepancies between poll numbers for EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE (accurate) versus Clinton (drastically higher). Check the discrepancies between hand counted and Diebold districts. It’s staring you in the face, people.
Whoever is pulling the strings wants Clinton nominated. Period.
In other words, the obsession to knock Hillary down was the main goal. Look, whether we like Hillary or not, many in the media will do anything to make her look bad. If she is to strong, she is cold. If she shows emotion, she is either weak or putting on an act. Chris Matthews and others on Faux News always portray her as a cold blooded bitch. In her White House days, the Right always put her down. Yet, Laura Bush is totally immune. I’m sure you all wil disagree. But, as a woman, I feel for her.
It’s the Diebold, stupid.
Zeppyfish @ 29:
Thats ludicrous the last thing the Neocons want is to go up against the Clintons. The Clintons know how to beat them. They won’t give the cons a pass this time.Their past is behind them and the neocons will look like total buffoons trying to invent new dirt on them.
Snerd Gronk @ 17:
Do yourself a favor and read up on multiple regression and covariates. Here’s a little preview.
Correlations do not demonstrate causation. Just because there’s a correlation between the method used and the results does not, by any means, demonstrate that the method caused the results.
Most of all, you need to look for covariates, which are other factors that are also correlated with the two events. For example (pulled out of my butt, so don’t focus on this too much), it could be that the precincts with optical scanners are more wealthy than those using paper. It could also be the case that wealthy precincts have people in them who lean towards Clinton. Therefore, you end up with a correlation between optical scanning and Clinton, but it isn’t causal; it’s “spurious” (no relation with the Florida football coach, tee hee).
P.D. @ 30:
She put herself in that position, so I don’t feel for her or anyone else that aspires to be the center of attention. And last time I checked, Laura Bush wasn’t running for Prez saying she was experienced cuz she was in the WhiteHouse while GDubya was playing with CondiLapdog. Get a grip people. She may be a woman, but she’s a rich, cut-throat callous politician. Period. It’s just by sheer coinkydink that she is a she. If this was someone like Ann Coultergeist you Dems would be cheering.
JTM @ 33:
Our state gives you the choice of optical or paper at the polls. Isn’t everyone doing this?
Che’s Lounge @ 10:
WTF are you talking about.the Diebold machines worked perfectly in Ohio in 2004,at least they did what the owner said they would–they delivered Ohio to Bush.
NO TRUTH;NO HONOR
Diebold causes the polls to be wrong in some precincts…always. The number was also consistently 5000-6300 votes difference….for several hours. It looked very weird. Get rid of the damned machines.
the neocons are going to be too busy fighting indictments to smear the clintons.
ConcernedCanuck @ 34:
Thats a little bit of a stretch.
JTM @ 33:
Let me see if I can interpret that…
Blah blah blah.
Bullshit.
The End.
Close?
kasinca @ 37:
Did the possibility that early-morning voters will break one way, while those from the rest of the day will be balanced occur to you?
Look for correlates! It might save you a lot of money. Rolls of tinfoil are expensive these days.
I’m serious. The neocons know the Clintons can beat them. And by a substantial margin. How much more proof does one need then the Hillary hysteria going on. The Clintons can pulverize the cons and rove this election.
squiggs @ 40:
Nope. It’s more like: (1) stick fingers in ears; (2) start singing.
I’m sorry if statistics are complicated.
L.A. Confidential @ 42:
Why do you think the NeoCons are any different than the Clintons? Is Bush a NeoCon? His dad is good friends with Bill. They have the same financial backers. Heck or Rupert Murdick himself luvs him some Hillary.
JTM @ 43:
These numbers don’t look to complicated to me….
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
We need to count the paper ballots rather than depend on Diebold machines.
Hillary was using Al Qaeda and war to startle the voters similar tactics of Bush.
We have a serious problem in our election process.
mudshark @ 5:
Keith did one on himself.