The Numbers

Or you could save a lot of time and effort and do away with polls altogether. They serve no useful purpose other than to give the media pundits thousands of hours/pages of material to waste people's time with.

Polls are worthless. And once again, we are reminded why we shouldn't trust the media, or media hype for that matter.

I am glad somebody is talking about this! Here's the problem. The polls accurately predicted to within 1% error EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE EXCEPT OBAMA/CLINTON. If you look at the pre-vote polls for ALL other candidates, they match up exactly. I mean exactly. Then, it is as if the Clinton/Obama results are reversed. They're both off by 5+% each. The statistical odds of this happening by chance must be astronomically small. This should cause a serious investigation into potential vote fraud. You must be able to explain this discrepancy and rule out fraud. Otherwise, fraud must be the prime suspect if we hope to have fair elections in the future!

There is no problem with the polls. They were correct, however, things changed the night before. Hillary's near crying event the day before was played over and over and showed her to be "finally" authentic. It got her the advantage.

I couldn't agree more, just get rid of polling and let the people vote...there is such overkill with the news coverage and emphasis of polls, not to mention the nauseating phone calls soliciting even more info...maybe Obama could use this as his first change, since we haven;t heard about any of the others.

I would like to know how many people are registered to vot in new hampshire... I suspect that more folks voted democrat than are registered at all. Then add in the legal republican votes and you have half of vermont, and a bunch of busloads of mass. morons...the ones who bus around voting thrice for ed kennedy.... But as to the uofficial polls the media uses to try to sway opinions of folks to believe liar elections, well, sometimes you think you are succedding, when you are not - to wit: 2000, 2004. Mccain feingold helped you guys a lot.

How about another possibility: Vote fraud. I would put nothing past the Clintons. polls can be wrong, but they are rarely that wrong. Running out of ballots and running out to get more was a bit suspicious,

I'm starting to wonder if what we're seeing is the same type of thing we've seen in past elections-- electronic voting fraud-- which clearly helped Bush in the past two elections-- could it be that the Republicans WANT Hillary to get the nomination and are desperate enough to make it happen?

Awfully coincidental....

Polls are worthless -- to us. They are only worth it to you pundits, without them, all of you will be out of a job. This goes for sports as well. Why don't you predict the weather tomorrow based on what it was a year ago on that date. Geez...

Since the only poll that counts is the final poll in the election booth, why do we take these polls anyway?

They serve no particular public good. And, in fact do a public disservice by seeming to encourage an un healthy thing in a democracy, herdlike behavior.

All they really do is give the media a lot to talk about which is the wrong thing to talk about: handicapping the race rather than discussing the issues and the cndidatres' qualities.

Call me crazy, but I seem to recall this isn't the first time in recent election history that pollsters and pundits got things completely wrong. And this isn't the first time that you media types have wrung your hands and called for some serious introspection in the wake of another screw-up. Blah, blah, blah. Whatever.

Nice. Obama pulls ahead in Iowa, and everyone celebrates. Hillary comes out on top in NH, and immediately people start "investigating" what went wrong. I am so tired of the pile-up against her. She is no more ambitious or calculating or staged than Reagan was. Just more female.

Hillary the victim, the shed tear, the hitching voice, one day before the election. Just in time to get the typical sympathy vote as she did in New York. Hillary only wins, it appears, when she plays the victim.

Go Obama.

I am going with 'as of yet unexplained phenomena', meaning I don't put anything beyond the realm of possibility where the Clintons are concerned. I think we will know more in the coming days.

Why would I ever tell tell pollsters what I voted, my vote is secret

I live in New Hampshire. We were getting several phone calls a day..both from candidates and polls. I started picking a candidate of the day and that would be my answer to the pollsters. I even had one pollster giggle on Kucinich day.

Another vote for doing away with the polls. Some one should tell the reporters and analysts it's 2008. It is an era of all day information and statistics.

Also, no one is mentioning that the caucuses allow for candidates to go with a second choice if their first is non-viable. Thats approximately 16,000 votes that could've gone either way. Important?

When dealing with the Clintons fraud should be right at the top of the list of possibilities.

I totally agree with Eric. I would not put anything past the Clintons. They cannot be trusted.

For so many polls showing similar results in the Democratic Primary end up being so completely wrong just smells fishy to me when the Clintons are involved. Combined with the fact that Drudge ran a report that New Hampshire was running short of ballots for Democrats because so many people were turning out, makes me wonder if there isn't some shenanigans going on with busing in illegal voters. Sorry, but since it's a Clinton win when she was supposed to lose in almost every poll by at least 10 percentage points, I can't help but smell a rat considering the nasty history of this couple.

New Hampshire is a pretty short bus ride from Mass. or NY--with the lax voting rules in NH don't you suppose the Clintonistas helped a few voters find their ways to the polls??

Polls are always off IMO! Its funny how the pundits were telling us it was all over after Iowa. This country should have some type of super tuesday every 4 years to start off the election process. Then alternate the states every 4 years. It should not be a few states tell us who is in and who is out.

I'm with Eric on this. They don't call IT the "Clinton Family" ever. Ever! Do they? They call IT the "Clinton Machine."

Highly speculative indeed but if the shoe fits...

polls are simply baloney.
the guys that sell them won't say
so because they make them rich.
**********************************
they are wrong every year.
they change daily.
what use are they?

"could it be that the Republicans WANT Hillary to get the nomination and are desperate enough to make it happen"

Huh.. take off your aluminum foil hat. As far as all the pundit's thinking is the Republicans want Obama to win.

Our poll here in Iowa before the caucus ran by the Des Moines Register was dead on with the Clinton/Obama results. Why are the NH polls so off? I guess when the votes are counted behind the scenes vs. out in the open like the caucus, then results can be WAY different.

I feel so naive. I, at
34, felt hope for the first timein our elections. I saw someone who might actually be for real. I read Judiciary Watch, and am not claiming I think he's perfect, but I found hope in him. This primary was stolen. Huge lead yesterday, exit polls talking about voting for change. Could we please not let this go.

I completely agree with the sentiments on this board. How someone comes back from an 8 point deficit and scores 4 points in the positive overnight(total of 12 points) is unheard of. The crying moment didn't change that huge of an audience.

Particularly given the fact that these poll averages nailed ALL the other candidates. I'm the furthest thing from a conspiracy theorist, but this wreaks of fraud. Even more coincidental is that Bill Clinton says it's going to be close an hour before the polls close. How would he know this if all the polls were saying otherwise?

I know no one in the media probably wants to even throw this out -- but someone's got to do some serious journalism on who has accountability for the electronic voting systems in our country.

From Sourcewatch:

Since a County Commissioner can easily have or permit physical access, and the Accuvote communicates using modem technology whose vulnerability is well-known, there is no way of guaranteeing that electoral fraud has not been enabled by these machines by any machines other than an actual hand recount of the paper ballots that these machines scan and actually count.

I LIVE IN TEXAS... TONIGHT I WENT OUTSIDE, TRIPPED ON LOG AND HURT MY KNEE.. I KNOW THOSE DAMN CLINTONS DID IT.....GET A LIFE YOU CRY BABIES...OR TELL YOUR DADDY TOM DELAY...

Seems pretty clear to me. The polls gave Obama the lead with women by 3, yet Obama lost that demographic by 13.

Hillary had her "Oprah" moment in that cafe and it turned on a lot of old ladies. Either that or it was fraud,
which is nothing new to liberals, especially, the Clintons. I think Bill got an operative in there somehow. Either way, I don't trust women that vote for a woman like Hillary on the basis of her "welling up".

i have seen inaccurate polls. but i have never seen anything like this. it is not sufficient to say that all of the independents voted for mccain in the republican primary, because their turnout was so much lower.
it cannot be a coincidence that democratic turnout was so much higher than expected and that hillary's numbers were also so much higher than expected. where did those voters come from?
this whole thing smells.

I don't think anyone should consider those in New Hampshire as "independently minded anti-establishment" voters as they clearly picked the two biggest establishment candidates they could have. If they really did "vote against the media" it's a sad day indeed; do they really feel rebellious by voting for Clinton ? A tough bunch they say; yeah, a tough bunch of automatons.

Personally I think the first poster was correct: the Diabold machines.

The people have spoken in NH, the pundits, the big media and the rigged pollsters that can easy manipulate people opinion all of then LOST! The incredible biased media in favor of OBama, the outragious biased against Clinton and the total write offf of Edwards. Their manipulative tactis lost. the people won. Now the same pundits, media should focus in the issues instead and we'll have a campaign; but they never learn the lesson.
And what of the Obama wave? That wave crested and has turned. His candiate will have more scrutiny and he shold be held to the same standards than any other politician running for the Presidency.
Good night for democracy in the US. Shame on CNN's Blitzer among others, MSNBC starting with Chris Mathews, ah...and Tapper from ABC. They should learn to be real unbiased journalist!

This is extremely disturbing, because it
may influence someone who already has been told that their candidate will loose to stay home, when their candidate
may still have a chance to win. And let's face the fact that the media has
clearly favored Obama, and they told us
he would win. So, did they lie, or intentionally mislead us to influence the final result?

The way I see it. Its a wide open race for both partys. One note: Voter turnout sets records With ballots from 12 percent of voting precincts still to be counted, about 453,000 residents had cast votes, breaking the previous primary turnout record of 396,385 ballots cast in 2000.

State officials predicted that when all ballots were counted, the total would surpass 500,000.

I not going to get into a contest of who is the best candidate but to see these numbers of voters who have come out to vote in amazing

Hillary's win was Hillary tearing up. It changed the discussion from "Obama is bringing in the youth vote for the first time" to "Hillary is a human being".

There is no tactical explanation. It is big picture/strategic.

Not knocking Hillary for her tearing. I've run 3rd party Libertarian three times and every election night when I get 1% I've had the same physiological/psychological reaction, not crying but def welling up. It is real.

Regardless, I'm a Republican and no doubt Obama is the best Dem. President McCain the Democrats aren't unhappy with; same feeling for President Obama from the Republican side.

Clinton is Kerry, a self-serving, well-marrying politican that regular people just don't like. Dems should stop giving their pres. nomination to the machine that always loses on negatives in the General. Vote for a leader. Obama is a leader.

two words....independent voters. With McCain making a decent showing in Iowa, he probably swung alot of independent voters in NH that would have otherwise voted Obama. I'd love to have a breakdown of the actual numbers broken down by declared party who voted for who. I'd put nothing past the Clintons.....but voter fraud in NH.....nah, not buying into it.

One thing that is getting understatedis the biracial polling and the historical errors -- polls often overstate black candidates. What's different about Iowa? It is not a secret vote, so people can't secretly "switch" in the voting booth.

It is without question racism .... remember in Iowa -- everything is out in the open here it is behind closed doors....

We were paid to saturate the polls to reflect better numbers for Obama. This way it would appear that Hillary came from behind to trounce him and help propell her forward. Bill even mentioned this in a speech but you all are to dumb to see this. Hillary will win.. we will see to that.!!

And how about the Republican percentages all night long, not Changing at all. Not with new incoming returns or returns from different areas of NH (like college towns)- nothing changed the percentages (with in a 1% point) all night long.
37% McCain
31-32% Romney
11-12% Huck
9% Rudy (this never changed once)
8-9% Paul (and Paul Never overtook rudy he was always just right behind him)
1% Hunter

Replay the tape. This stayed the same all night long until broadcast went off the air.

Lame.

Powerful people conspire all the time for good. Why is it so hard to think that sometimes they conspire for evil?

The polls were wrong because when the curtain closed the Progressives weren't as progressive as they said they were.

I think the Bradley effect only partially explains tonight's results. It must be looked at in the context of this week's events. Six days ago Hillary held a remarkable lead in NH - Obama received a huge bounce to overtake her. I think most of the votes that Hillary gained were somewhat of a mini-Bradley effect - mitigrated by the fact that perhaps many saw that a changed vote reverting away from the black candidate that they only started supporting days earlier might be more ethically palatable, in that their support of the other candidate (Hillary) is/was genuine, being that it was actually real and legitimate support in the previous week. ...Or(the Correction of the Reverse-Bradley theory) perhaps, Obama's huge bounce was the result of many progressives that joined the hype while genuinely wanting to participate in electing of the first black President (the reverse-Bradley), but in the end decided that their original support of a different candidate was actually more true, fair and legitimate than voting specifically to be part of history.

I have a very simple, yet logical answer for what happened tonight. Lots of Republicans voted for Hillary. Heck.. It's what I am planning to do when the Obama trainwreck hits my home state.

Polls with structured modeling are kind of like communism. People trying to "create" the model that will predict and anticipate the market, rather than letting the free market take its course. Voting is no different. I would bet that truly random sampling polls are likely fairly accurate. But when you try to manipulate the poll to and control the variables based on how some person in a cubicle thinks people will turn out and vote, it is nothing more than junk in and junk out.

Yeah - hello! Gary you talk about everything from swamp gas to the moon in conjunction with Venus except the freaking pink elephant in the room - THE VOTE WAS RIGGED!!!!
Do you think its just coincidence that every President in recent history and most of their opposition have been members of the 'Skull and Bones', most from Yale, and its been Bush, Clinton, Bush and now inevitably Clinton.
Here is the real question for you validators of the status quo:
HOW CAN YOU SAY WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY?
HOW CAN YOU SAY WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE?
EXPLAIN THAT TRUTH WITH YOUR STATISTICAL DATA!

I lived in NH for over 10 years. I had to show proof of residence/ID everytime I showed to vote. And, its true, during primary season and general elections, alot of us intentionaly lied on polls and exit polls. Perhaps Obama relied too much on the college towns (alot of out of state students?) thinking that this would pull him through. Bottom line, Obama lost this one, move on to the next state and don't believe your press clippings.

EVERY SINGLE POLL had Obama taking New Hampshire in an unprecedented double digit lead, and all of a sudden Hillary takes it by 3%? Why is this the ONLY poll to be off?

After Obama's Iowa win, I had such high hopes that the Clintons stranglehold on American politics was finally over. Tonight the Clintons, thru their dirty tactics, stole the primary and stole my hope.

There is NO WAY Ron Paul's final #'s matched real,measured pre-primary support on the ground. Diebold rides again. I give up on clean elections in our banana Republic...

It's rather easy to explain.

When a Republican beats the polls, fraud is the only explanation.

When a Clinton does it, HELLO COMEBACK HILLY!

I wonder if there were any polls done just for certain cities. In some of the larger towns (Manchester), Hillary won by a landslide. Did the polls reflect this?????

Interesting results in the polls v actual results in this single race. Could it be voter fraud? Could it be machine malfunction? Unlikely, as all other races came out exactly as predicted. Perhaps the pollsters themselves fudged the data for their own reasons. Or could there have been a vast left-wing conspiracy to entice voters to vote for a particular candidate? Or could it be a simple sampling error on the part of all of the pollsters? Whatever the reason, it only shows up the faults of relying too heavily on polls. Remember, "It's not over, til its over."

Hillary was helped by her tears.

Obama was hurt by his initial cockiness. He ASSUMED he would win because of the huge crowds and the voters taught him a lesson.

Beyond that, I made my decision on who to vote for months ago on the basis of PRINCIPLES. I am NOT impressed by New Hampshire voters (or Iowans) whose egocentricity demands several visits with a candidate before they'll deign to give their vote.

My candidate (Thompson) did not campaign in New Hampshire so they gave him only 1% of the vote. Did his principles and platform mean nothing to these twits? Obviously not.
We have to start rotating which states go first.

Who votes that edwards got tonight would have gone to-?

Well, some New Hampshire precincts had computer voting and some had paper ballots... let's compare them.

If there is Diebold fraud it should be evident in the difference.

Fact is that Hillary's message has been drowned by an Obama obsessed media. A study done of the coverage revealed that Hillary has been getting hit hard by the media. Members of the media freely admit their biased for Obama. Finally Hillary started to hit Obama were it hurts, his claims that he's always held the same stance on the war and other issues. Enough people in NH heard the message to turn the election. Democracy is a very messy thing, and no matter how much the media would like to convince us otherwise, they cannot predict elections with the certainty that they claim.

I don't know what's more depressing - the fact that people really believe Obama could be a good president, or that there are Americans who really believe in these ridiculous conspiracy theories. Yes, the Skulls et al manage to rig elections every year under the nose of millions of Americans and journalists (not to mention all the government agents who are the only ones in Washington who never leak anything), but they couldn't successfully plant weapons of mass destruction in an Arab country completely controlled by the US military on the other side of the globe that had zero free journalists in it to uncover the plot. Seriously, it's scary you people are allowed to vote.

I love the paranoid liberals that are crying voter fraud. It seems to be OK when the Chicago political machine does it or when Acorn does it but if the media darling suffers suddenly it's viter fraud? Bottom line, polls are crap. The media analysis is all crap. They are nothing more than a mutual admiration society.
NH used to be comservative back when Wm Loeb was publisher of the Manchester Union Leader. it was contest between Arizona (Goldwater country) and New Hampshire to see who was the most conservative. Now NH is full of liberals running to escape the Taxachusetts but ignorantly bringing their big govt socialism with them. Fred, Mitt or Rudy should be the big winner on the Republican side when the dust settles. Talk to real America instead of the select sample of morons you media types usually talk to.

VOTER FRAUD....as the votes were being tallied, and her highness was ahead, I said that they, hill and bill, somehow rigged the vote..Hill bused in hoardes from NY to fill one of her rallies, and paid the bill, so, yes we will scream like stuck pigs, because we have dealt with the clintons before, and God forbid, if she would win, this will be what they get for the length of her term...the puke machine has pulled the wool over the eyes of women, and they should know better.

The reason Clinton won is because of the Sean Hannity / Fox news conspiracy. If Clinton lost they would all be out of a job . I think Sean Hannity almost cried tonight seeing Clinton win. I'm sure they will whipped up the message of hate machine after this. But they are just more of the BUSH TRAIN WRECK of the last 7 years.

I cannot believe the sore loosers Barak Obama supporters, vote fraud, give me break. One little Iowa caucus gone to your head. This is a long fight. Your little Iowa fairy tale will be proven absolute non-sense. The guy has no experience, press never even asks a single tough question because of worry of being branded racist and he got lucky in Iowa. Hillary is being attacked by press every single day, its unbeleivable, you would think entire press has gone right wing wacko. NBC admits they were biased pro-Obama etc...etc... PEOPLE REBELLED. People are smarter than to fall for meida tricks.

Yeah right, it's the machines. And Bush was behind it all. Uh huh, sure.

How would it benefit hillary to falsely inflate Obama's support before the election? Answer: It doesn't. It looks to me that if any fraud took place, it came from pollsters who were biased towards Obama, trying to drum up more votes.

And I agree with the sentiment of getting rid of these polls once and for all... but where most of you are wrong is that they DO matter!! they influence people who have not yet voted.

Oh, and a question for those of youwho believe in conspiracies - why would the indefatigable "Clinton Machine" rig New Hampshire but let her lose Iowa so badly? If they let her lose IA and made her win NH, don't you think they're smart enough to realize that will raise some eyebrows? Or are you so ill that you really think they could engineer a massive fraud across the state in the five days they had between IA and NH, without a single person leaking it to the media / blogosphere / whatever realm you think is not controlled by the "Machine" (if any)? Eagerly awaiting the fairy tales you have for that.

I've heard it all now. Why are Democrats so unbelievably paranoid? The guy Tom that had a comment blames the poll inacuracy on Republicans. We want to make sure Hillary wins, so we rigged the voting because we believe we can easily beat her in the big election!!!!!!. Why are all Democrats so screwed up in the head?

And whats the deal with Iowa and NH deciding who are the viable candidates for the reset of us all? That's crap... very undemocratic.

We should have some sort of lottery every election cycle for the primary order... way too much power in these tiny states.

I'm not a Hilary hater. Her tears were fine with me.
But I won't vote for her because she's the status quo.
That said, something's just off about this NH vote.
It just didn't compute.
Were exit polls taken? Internationally, exit polls have traditionally been considered the most accurate way to determine how voters voted.
Which states have cleaned up their electronic voting? Some states haven't demanded a paper trail and/or better tracking for electronic voting machines.
It will be interesting to note which states have surprise results.

There is no voter fraud here, Hillary won fair and sqaure. Every candidate has a large team of lawyers who watch all the polls for voting irregularity. No complaint has been filed because there has been no voter fraud! For all you conspirary theorists, remember how the polls were off for the 2004 election with Kerry and Bush, they had Kerry winning.

The real turn around in the election should be credited to the massive amounts of volunteers who showed up for Hillary. She had over 6,000 volunteers and 300 drivers canvassing, making phone calls, and doing visibility for her. Obama got too comfortable with his lead, cocky in fact, saying in the debates, to Hillary, "I guess you're likeable, enough." His supporters and volunteers rode up and down Elm Street in Manchester shouting "Obama, Obama" to Stevie Wonder's "Signed, Sealed, Delivered." I've been a big Hillary supporter but if I were an undecided voter stunts like that would certainly turn me off to a candidate. Plus, Obama was coming down from his bump in the polls from his victory in Iowa, it normally takes five days for this to happen but since the primary was so soon after the caucus I wasn't sure if the bump would ever level out.

And, let's face it, people are probably finally beginning to realize that Obama, while he has amazing rhetoric, has no legitimate plans to support his broad generalizations about what he'll do if elected. Plus, Obama doesn't have the experience of creating change to back him up. Look at his senate record, when he was running for Senate he promised he'd never vote to increase funding to Iraq. He's done just that hundreds of times.

Oh, and why did he lie about his head of his NH campaign being a lobbyist? it's not that hard to find his name as a registered lobbyist for about six different companies or unions.

I don't think the polls were that off...I see something different altogether.

The "diner" incident on Monday -- the day before the vote -- where Hillary's eyes welled up a bit and she really showed she cared and how hard she had worked in her political life. It was somewhat moving...and trust me, I'm not a Hillary supporter.

But what's different today is that in years past, those who watch the video of that would have caught it on TV. At that means that you have to wait for the part of the news...which probably also means that less people watched it.

Now with broadband internet, you simply clicked on a link as saw the moving snippet. The instantaneity of the internet -- as well as its "view-on-demand" ability -- mean that polling by current methods is just a wee bit too slow to keep up with fast happening breaking news events.

I am glad I am not the ony one who thinks these results are fishy. Being a Chicago boy, I remember the Daley Machine well

Polls are used by the media to help push voters towards the chosen Ones then the voting system, the final chosen One.

Chris - As unrepresentative as IA and NH are, do you know of any other states that would spend nine months studying the candidates, meeting and quizzing them in neighbors' houses, showing up to town hall meetings, discussing their options as communities, etc.? I sure don't, and I think these two tiny states serve a good purpose - they vet the candidates in ways no other state could or would (can you see New York doing that???).

Ultimately those two tiny states DON'T pick the nominee - they have a tiny fraction of the delegates. If you vote in your state's primary based on how IA or NH voted, then that's nobody's fault but your own.

What's this with the ballots names being a random draw?

They we're alphabetical. Can't think of a fairer way.

No Fan of Hillary, but I voted in NH, and noticed in the polling booth they we're alphabetical. Followed the link because maybe the wacky dems did something different, but nope, they are all in alphabetical order.

Did Hillary really win? Was it rigged? But let's not lose sight on the fact that she had a double digit lead before this recent confused poll, now it's only 3 in a real voting. That really tell me that Obama had caught up beautifully.

Other Chris: You know as well as I do that the momentum from winning these 2 early primaries is huge. It's not about delegates at all but about public perception. Clinton was WAY ahead in NH until Obama won Iowa... at which point many of the voters in NH surely reconsidered his viability.

I think all of you have it backwards and are missing the point. You're making the argument that something must be wrong with the Hillary/Obama numbers because everything else was nailed exactly.

The truth is, something is wrong because of those exact hits; polls are NEVER that good.

My take? The Hillary/Obama numbers may in fact be accurate, but the rest are definitely not.

Haven't read all comments so I don't know if anyone has brought this up, but I believe many many NH voters saw what was happening via news coverage. The media rightly claimed that if Hillary lost NH, she was done. Many who had earlier intended to vote for Obama switched to Hillary in order to keep the national primary contest alive. They were not so convinced of Obama's credentials and electibility to eliminate Hillary as the possible Dem nominee.

Hillary won by busing in voters from NY??? Riiight... somehow they bussed in 10,000+ supporters without anybody noticing all the buses poring over the NH borders on the few highways leading in to the state?! Which precincts did all these buses show up at? I have to imagine at least one person would have captured a bus or two on a camera phone. Where did all the buses fill up for gas? Where did all the buses leave from? Any witnesses there, either? Where did the buses come from? Did they rent them from NY school districts? Surely an army of yellow school buses invading the state would have caught somebody's attention! Oh, wait... they were probably invisible buses, beamed in with the help of the NSA! Lol

And this notion that republicans want to run against Hillary is ridiculous! Personally, as a republican running for president, I'd much rather go against a guy who runs on nothing but his looks and charm. What does he offer other than a buzzword? 'Change' is a cheap expression that anyone can throw around. Doesn't necessarily mean anything.

A lot of morons saying "polls are worthless; do away with polls..."

Any of you anti-poll folks want to tell me a better way to examine possible voter fraud? If you don't have prior estimates, on what basis can you even begin to think an election is fraudulent?

Take it from an Arkansan....the Clinton machine is money, power and privlege. Please do not be fooled by the Clinton Machine. Anything is possible with this group. Be careful....they will stop at nothing to fool anybody and everybody.