Iowa - 3% minority .... Obama wins
New Hampshire - 10% voters registered on voting day
no residency requirements ..... Hildabeast wins
Racism or voter fraud ?
You be the judge
I dont buy this Bradley effect.
There is too much anecdotal evidence showing that Hillary was bringing in out of staters to vote.
NH is a liberal state, so whites there would be more honest in voting for a black candidate
I think what we have here is the “Hillary Effect”....media refusing to call Hillary a cheater
Mr. Hawkins unfortunately doesn't understand the nature of political psychosis. There are many (see my tagline for further information) who are crazy enough to believe that Hillary is a closet Republican, or at least a right-winger.
She was raised in a Republican home, after all, and she did vote for the war. Even if the nut cases don't believe she's actually a Republican, it's not a huge leap for them to believe that Diebold will sell its services to the highest bidder, and that Hillary was the highest bidder. Or, as an alternate theory, that the Republicans paid Diebold for Hillary's win because that's who they want to face in the general election.
See how easy this game is to play? I'll bet that with enough alcohol, crystal meth, Mary Jane, or just huffing paint out of a sock, you, too could come up with an explanation worthy of DU or the DailyKos.
Finally a theory I agree with. Democrats are closet racists.
Well, if we accept the author’s premise, doesn’t the liberal, lying, “lily whiteness” of New Hampshire argue for demoting it from first place in the primary state queue because of a permanent built-in bias that is not reflective of the rest of the country???
Hmmmm???
Maybe we’ll see a older white woman tooling down a NH highway with a “Racist for Hillary!” bumper sticker on her Prius.
Well, what he said-—or Hillary cheated. Let me think about it.
True and that factor is: they cheat.
Hitlery bussed in voters from out of state. They weren't around for the pre-election polls.
Would that be Bradley Bus Lines?
It reminds me of the old (circa 1965) New Yorker cartoon. Two guys sitting at a bar, one says to the other, "You're not a liberal, I'm a liberal. I want a woman for president who's both a Negro and a Jew." (Polite people called the coloreds "Negroes" back then.)
Why? For the simple reason that I don't think it's anyone else's business as to whom I voted for - plain and simple. I certainly would not volunteer that information readily.
The Clintons would resort to whatever it takes to win. If Hillary cannot have it, she will steal it.
The only reason the Beast was crying is that they would have preferred to have her anointed.
Remember folks, they will do whatever it takes. They will justify it in their belief that we are doing it for the good of the people.
All the angst on Clinton operatives that day was about the fact they had to put in place the plan to “steal” the vote.
I am sure they used several techniques of thievery working together in New Hampshire.
It also has to be factored in that NH shares a border with the highly liberal Ben and Jerry state and it is very easy for Vermonters to cross over and vote in NH. The same is obviously true for Massachusetts. I’d like to see a comparison of results from polling locations close to the border vs. farther from the border.
It’s the Mass/NY import effect, IMO.
Although the Bradley Effect may have also played a part.
.
I have my doubts about the Bradley effect. The Kerry/Bush exit polls in 2004 were way off also, and no black man was in that race.
I see it like this - not everyone agrees to talk to pollsters. I would think that young liberals would be more likely to, and older, busy conservatives would be less likely to. The pollsters try to mathematically compensate for this discrepancy, but doing so is a statistical crap shoot.
Obama, as we have heard, draws votes from a younger crowd than Hillary, so he is going to poll better than he does in the voting booth.
ahh so it was alllllll just racism.
This means the MSM does not have to report the REAL story of the bus convoys.
Does anyone have pictures?
I believe the bradley effect. You can see it in the Maryland 2006 Senate race.
However, I don’t think that’s the only explanation for New Hampshire.
If you look at the demographic, Hillary cleaned up on older people. So the question is, did the polls before the election properly reflect the percentage of old people vs young people who showed up to vote?
Maybe the pollsters all had some model for how many young poeple and old people would actually vote, and that model turned out to be wrong.
Remember, most polls have a 3-4 point MOE, and that’s assuming the model is correct. MOE isn’t a measure of “how often the poll is ‘wrong’”, it’s an indication of a reasonable probability that the numbers provided are off by up to the MOE. a MOE of 4% generally means that 95% of the time, data like that in the poll yields numbers withint 4% up or down from where the actual results will end up.
Which also means that 5% of the time, the poll yields numbers which are FARTHER than 4% from the real numbers.
The question that needs to be answered in order to determine if the polling model is right is to see if the subsamples of the poll match the results, given the actual turnout.
You can’t use exit polls for this, because they too have errors, although they are a good first cut — you could break down your exit polls by age for example, and compare it to a the last day polling by age, and if it matches, your model was wrong.
But AGE is publicly known, so if you simply look at the names of everybody who showed up to vote, and calculate their age and gender, you can use that to re-do the last polls with actual turnout information, and see if they get the correct answer.
If not, then there could have been a bradley effect. If the polls give the RIGHT answer with the right model, the problem was the model, not the people answering the questions.
Who is Bradley?
Come on.