Chris Matthews: Raw exit poll data shows Obama win in NH

[garybeck]

Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in NH

'Was Ahead an Average of 8 Points, Even in Our Own Exit Polls'

Even the Exit Polls showed that Obama should have won, according to Chris Matthews on Hardball today. It's the first specific indication that we've seen that the raw, unadjusted Exit Poll data, which only corporate mainstream media folks, not mere mortals, are allowed to see, confirmed all of the pre-election polling which predicted an Obama win.

He introduced his segment today this way:

MATTHEWS: So what accounts for Hillary Clinton's victory in New Hampshire? What we don't know is why the victory is so much different in fact, then the polling ahead of time, including what we call the Exit Polls were telling us. Obama was ahead in those polls by an average of 8 points, and even our own Exit Polls, taken as people came out of voting, showed him ahead. So what's going on here?

full story:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535

[mikelgb]

1. sorry according to the mods your 1 day to produce evidence was yesterday

you'll have to move this to the free speech zone

[Bonobo]

2. Apparently not enough suspicion to even question the vote for some.

[rodeodance]

3. 'Indicated"---but it did not happen. Your subline is very deceptive

[rinsd]

4. LOL....foilers depending on the word of Tweety!

[Bonobo]

5. Not depending. No. Just another reason for justifiable, healthy skepticism.

[cloudythescribbler]

21. JUSTIFIED HEALTHY SKEPTICISM IS SPOT ON -- where are all the moderators' SPECIFIC refutations????nt

[ORDagnabbit]

9. sorry to rain on your parade.....check my post down about

unadjusted poll data

[stillcool]

25. LOL...

I love how you all that don't want accurate vote counting in this country...spew your one line 'opinions' with the same syntax.

[boricua79]

6. keep asking the question

"what's going on here"

"What's FUCKING going on here".

and then arrive at the conclusion...STOLEN ELECTIONS

[ORDagnabbit]

7. heres some unadjusted by results poll data

NH-Pres (D)
Jan 8 Suffolk Univ.Obama 39%, Clinton 34%, Edwards 15% ..

Jan 8 RasmussenObama 37%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 19% ...NH-Pres (R)

Jan 8 ZogbyObama 42%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 17% ...NH-Pres (R)

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/exit_polls_obama_and_mccain_ah.html
8:01 pm
Obama 39%
Clinton 34%
Edwards 18%


http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/exit-poll-obama.html
8:10pm
Sen. Barack Obama: 39%.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: 38%.

proof the networks are editing their results....
9:08 PM Exit poll has been reweighted and combined with town-by-town returns from sources suggest Senator Clinton may very well win by two points. - JOHN McINTYRE

[Bumblebee]

8. a. not according to CNN or ABC exit polls. b. don't you see his motive?!

[ORDagnabbit]

10. those polls are adjusted to conform to results. look at the unadjusted poll data

why did the polling and exit polling come out spot on for hand counts but was off by 7% only where the machines counted?

did they only poll in hand counted areas?

[Bumblebee]

12. Not true. Both ABC and CNN were heavily hinting that the results

would be VERY close before the results were in. It all started as soon as the early polls closed at 7pm -- and even before.

[ORDagnabbit]

16. can you provide a time stamp link like mine up above for this? thanks.

[Bumblebee]

17. will do my best to find it.

[ORDagnabbit]

20. thanks... I'm doing the same....there has to be a better search tool for time specific stuff. :)

[Bumblebee]

23. Here's the best I can do -- could not find _the_ article I had in mind but as good

ABC blog with time stamped -- here starts one hour before polls close -- at the bottom -- and ends ten minutes prior (top), and the discussion of exit polls:

6:50 pm: Here's our polling director's first cut on this. I should also note
that the campaigns are furiously spinning the early exit poll numbers. I will
repeat what I said earlier -- is there a need for spin when the results will
speak for themselves? (Short answer, I'm afraid to say, is yes -- since what
matters is how the numbers are perceived as much as the numbers themselves.)

6:07 pm: More on the youth vote -- preliminary numbers suggest that only about
one in six Democratic voters are under age 30 -- another data point that isn't
great for Obama. So far -- this is not looking like another Iowa. I come back to
the point I made earlier: If Obama wins by just a little bit, won't the Clinton
folks declare victory?

Meanwhile, at the Obama rally at Nashua South High School, the "CHANGE we can
believe in" placard has just been hung on the podium, ABC's Sunlen Miller
informs us. Said the tech staffer who was testing the mic: "I'm not him, you
don't need to take picture of me, he'll be here in a couple hours." If he wins,
he'll be very happy, of course, but there could me more than one "victory"
speech tonight.

5:53 pm: OK -- some preliminary analysis from the network exit polls. First,
there are more independents voting, but NOT disproportionately so. Our polling
director, Gary Langer, says they are voting in "substantial but customary
numbers." This suggests a closer race, maybe in both sides. But there's also a
roughly equal portion of independents voting in the GOP primary as did in 2000,
when McCain used them to power to victory. So that's not great news for Obama.
So far, there's a spike in older voters, but NOT in younger voters -- but they
tend to vote later. So that's not great for Obama. Overall, that would suggest a
closer contest on the Democratic side than we have expected based on polls. We
may be here for a while...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-blogging-2.html

[helderheid]

11. Raw or weighted?

[Bumblebee]

13. RAW -- see above.

[Supersedeas]

14. where was all the Sound and Fury about exit polls in 2004 out of OH

Notta peep from Tweety then...now he is showing his true color -- a Yellow Shill of a Journalist

[Bumblebee]

15. Spot on. He is trying to save his skin. He laughed both in 2000 and 2004

when the issue of "stolen elections" was mentioned. Now he needs audience.

[Old and In the Way]

18. Exactly. This is all about his Clinton hate and looking for something to blame.

KO explained it last night....the pre-election polls had lots of soft committed voters. Tweety might have inadvertantly helped Hillary by his extreme negative focus. Chris could hardly contain himself in the run up to the election....he so badly wanted to see her defeated (as did many in the lamestream media) that they wrote her obit based on tenuous data. He's looking to blame his obvious bias against the Clinton's on bad polling, but it's more likely that they prewrote the story to fit their narrative. There's no support to think that the election was gamed to help Hillary. If there was, don't you think Edwards and Obama would be all over it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. Then let's channel that hate into something useful.

like transparent elections.

[jbnow]

26. No, he was trying to defend his point that voters lied

to pollsters because it was politically correct to say Obama.

Others reacted to it as being about pre-election polls (where Bradley effect is unlikely in a primary poll) or that people just changed their minds when they got into the voting booth.
Then he blurted out No, he means the exit polls, they said they voted for him and then he talked about the raw data.
He doesn't think there was a mistaken count, he thinks there were lying voters.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

19. Just a coincidence, I'm sure

Funny how the discrepancy between hand counts and diebold counts in the NH primary turned out exactly as it did in the 2004 OH general election.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[Imagevision]

22. Early 04 exit polling also got it wrong claiming Kerry was beating Bush...

much sarcasm here.