OpEdNews Op Eds

The New Hampshire Polls Weren't Wrong, the Media Was

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -
The polls actually indicated the race was close because there was an average 8.3% difference between Obama and Clinton bu there was 7.7% unaccounted for.  Clearly if the 7.7% went to Clinton then the poll result was statistically too close to call. That is what happened, so it was not an "upset."  Again, only by buying the crazy idea that the 7.7% should be ignored can someone like Russert believe that there was an amazing upset.

Lastly, let's look at the MSM fairytale that Clinton won New Hampshire.

In fact, New Hampshire was a tie. The MSM theme that Clinton "was behind" was an illusory fraud, so the new theme that she is now a "comeback girl" is also a fraud. 
The media is misinforming voters about the very nature of primaries and their results.  The candidate doesn't take away voted from the primary, he or she takes away delegates.  "Winning" the popular vote is meaningless by itself becasue the delegates are usually apportioned among those with more than 15% of the vote. Thus a plurality win or even a majority win does not take all the delegates, only an equivilent percentage of the delegates.

Clinton was virtually tied in Iowa since she was in second place and only one delegate (out of 4,049) behind Obama (16 to 15). Contrary to the MSM reports, Edwards was in third place in Iowa wtih 14 delegates. (This is not counting superdelegates for any of them of which Clinton has the most.)  So with 15 delegates meaning she was 1 delegate behind Obama's 16, Clinton was 6.25% behind Obama in Iowa. Not the "huge" win or the huge lead that the MSM and the Obama campaign made it out to be. In this picture of reality, Obama's campaign should never have allowed themselves to be sucked into that fairytale whirlwind of a "huge" win.

In primaries, the difference in the number of votes doesn't count at all if the % is less than the percentile needed to get a delegate. Thus in New Hampshire, where the 2% vote difference was not enough to award an extra delegate, the result between Clinton and Obama was actually a tie with 9 delegates each, not a win for Clinton. The so-called 2% "stunning victory" was an illusion since Clinton really needed about a 4.25% lead just to get one more delegate than Obama for a real win. Since New Hampshire was a dead heat tie for delegates and came off a virtual tie in Iowa, there was no great fall behind and no great upset win.  Both sides of the Iowa-New Hampshire story of great ups and downs were made up by the MSM and pundits like Russert to create sizzle out of whole cloth.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Buddha said that there are no beings to liberate, thus all beings are liberated. In the mean time while trying to realize this in daily life, I'm against the two-party dictaotrship and friendly fascism of the ruling plutocrats and their (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Democratic Primaries Are Over, I'm Headed for Greener Pastures

The New Hampshire Polls Weren't Wrong, the Media Was

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments