Comments on: Why Were The Polls So Wrong About Obama v. Hillary ? http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/09/why-were-the-polls-so-wrong-about-obama-v-hillary/ Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time. Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:42:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Rick Sincere http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/09/why-were-the-polls-so-wrong-about-obama-v-hillary/#comment-48865 Rick Sincere Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:01:29 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/09/why-were-the-polls-so-wrong-about-obama-v-hillary/#comment-48865 There's another explanation: Democratic voters find all of their top-tier candidates equally qualified, so they tend to change their minds from hour to hour. That means a voter might have told a pollster on Friday that he planned to vote for Obama on Tuesday, but on Sunday, after a conversation with a friend who supported Hillary, he changed his mind. Had that friend supported Edwards, his influence might have nudged the voter toward Edwards; had that friend supported Obama, his influence might have solidified the voter's decision to cast his ballot for Obama. When you are faced with competent, inspiring candidates whose positions on the issues are largely the same -- not identical, to be sure, but similar -- it is no flaw to change your mind once you enter the voting booth. You think you are voting for a winner regardless of the name you check on the ballot paper. There’s another explanation: Democratic voters find all of their top-tier candidates equally qualified, so they tend to change their minds from hour to hour.

That means a voter might have told a pollster on Friday that he planned to vote for Obama on Tuesday, but on Sunday, after a conversation with a friend who supported Hillary, he changed his mind. Had that friend supported Edwards, his influence might have nudged the voter toward Edwards; had that friend supported Obama, his influence might have solidified the voter’s decision to cast his ballot for Obama.

When you are faced with competent, inspiring candidates whose positions on the issues are largely the same — not identical, to be sure, but similar — it is no flaw to change your mind once you enter the voting booth. You think you are voting for a winner regardless of the name you check on the ballot paper.

]]> By: Tim Chng http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/09/why-were-the-polls-so-wrong-about-obama-v-hillary/#comment-48699 Tim Chng Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:14:54 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/09/why-were-the-polls-so-wrong-about-obama-v-hillary/#comment-48699 Diebold favors Hillary, hand count for Obama Hillary is the only candidate who has more votes on the Diebold machine versus hand counted ballots. http://presscue.com/node/38034 http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530 Using the Comma delimited database: NH municipalities hand count vs use Diebold machines from BlackBoxVoting.org to see if there was a deviation between the results from precincts which used hand counts and those which relied on Diebold machines. The results were astonishing. : Updated: 5:05 AM (EST) - Results tallied for 209 out of 236 of the municipalities. By Percentage Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Diebold Machines 53.23% 46.77% Hand Count 47.47% 52.53% By Votes Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Diebold Machines 82860 72807 Hand Count 18898 20912 By Number of Municipalities Won Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Diebold Machines 54 33 Hand Count 43 77 About 81% of the votes will be "counted" by the Diebold machines. This website does a county by county analysis on hand count versus Diebold counted results. One can see that the Diebold count gives hillary more votes and all other candidates less votes. http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS This video by blackbox voting shows: "One man's private, sole source company programs 81% of the election in New Hampshire, 100% in Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts and most of Vermont. Never before seen video of the under-the-radar elections contractor John Silvestro as he tangles with master security expert Harri Hursti." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs Diebold favors Hillary, hand count for Obama

Hillary is the only candidate who has more votes on the Diebold machine versus hand counted ballots.

http://presscue.com/node/38034

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530

Using the Comma delimited database: NH municipalities hand count vs use Diebold machines from BlackBoxVoting.org to see if there was a deviation between the results from precincts which used hand counts and those which relied on Diebold machines. The results were astonishing. :

Updated: 5:05 AM (EST) – Results tallied for 209 out of 236 of the municipalities.

By Percentage
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 53.23% 46.77%
Hand Count 47.47% 52.53%

By Votes
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 82860 72807
Hand Count 18898 20912

By Number of Municipalities Won
Method Hillary Clinton Barack Obama
Diebold Machines 54 33
Hand Count 43 77

About 81% of the votes will be “counted” by the Diebold machines.

This website does a county by county analysis on hand count versus Diebold counted results. One can see that the Diebold count gives hillary more votes and all other candidates less votes.

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

This video by blackbox voting shows:

“One man’s private, sole source company programs 81% of the election in New Hampshire, 100% in Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts and most of Vermont. Never before seen video of the under-the-radar elections contractor John Silvestro as he tangles with master security expert Harri Hursti.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

]]> By: Mark http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/09/why-were-the-polls-so-wrong-about-obama-v-hillary/#comment-48685 Mark Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:51:32 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/09/why-were-the-polls-so-wrong-about-obama-v-hillary/#comment-48685 I have a theory of my own, which I developed a bit on my site. First- Obama actually didn't lose any support from the pre-election polls, which kind of eliminates the Bradley Effect theory. The problem Obama had is that the Baby Boomers came out in massive numbers; meanwhile, he got the college kids out, but the numbers show that Gen X-ers were by far the weakest turnout group. I suspect that Hillary's tears gave her Baby Boomer base a bit of extra incentive to get out to the polls, as did the ridiculous debate question about her likeability. There's also the fact that her base of support was in the big towns, which are much more easily mobilized through get out the vote efforts than the rural areas. I have a theory of my own, which I developed a bit on my site. First- Obama actually didn’t lose any support from the pre-election polls, which kind of eliminates the Bradley Effect theory. The problem Obama had is that the Baby Boomers came out in massive numbers; meanwhile, he got the college kids out, but the numbers show that Gen X-ers were by far the weakest turnout group.

I suspect that Hillary’s tears gave her Baby Boomer base a bit of extra incentive to get out to the polls, as did the ridiculous debate question about her likeability. There’s also the fact that her base of support was in the big towns, which are much more easily mobilized through get out the vote efforts than the rural areas.

]]>