if some of those on intrade.com who bet on Clinton were the same ones who bought the 9/11 put options on United, American, Morgan Stanley, etc. 

Rethuglican vote-flipper Diebold no doubt supports Clinton, as she's the biggest corporate whore on the Dem side (Obama is a close 2nd), but polls also show she's gonna be easier for the Rethuglican candidate to beat than Obama. 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM

  (0+)

In fact, the polls did indicate that a substantial proportion of the voters were only leaning to one candidate and were still open to changing.  So the pre-election polls are not really inconsistent with the announced result.  All that needed to happen is enough people who were not really decided to wind up voting differently than they were leaning when the poll took place.  I think it's mainly a lesson in understanding the limits of pre-election polls.  Usually there will not be such a late shift, but it does happen.

by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 5:39:29 PM

  (0+)

It is my understanding that the polls were not wrong and actually showed upwards of 20% of voters undetermined as to the direction in which they would cast their vote. I think the mainstream media has done what we know it is so very good at doing: Spinning the news! As Tom Brokow said, maybe the media needs to stop predicting what the voters will do...let the voters vote and count the votes. The media can (and probably should) actually analyze information available and talk about issues.

I noticed a fair amount of what appeared to be 'jubilation' from individuals who call themselves 'journalists', or 'reporters's as they reported that Obama was expected to beat Hillary. I wonder, is it the Clintons who hate the media or vice versa? I think there is no doubt that the media (mainstream) would like to decide who our next president will be. they are the ones we need to worry about. Do we need to be vigilent about the electronic votes? Absolutely. We also need to pay attention to the exit polling and how that occurs. It is my understanding that the exit polls were unprofessionally done and not well organized at all.

So, while I have not yet made up my mind as to which candidate my vote will go to, I believe Hillary won. And, I believe that she won fair and square. But if there is any question as to the accuracy of the electronic vote, this is the time to catch it. Do we have a system in place to do that? If we don't, we'd better or we're going to end up with another 'Bushie' at the helm. Paper ballots work for me with plenty of people to count and oversee that it is done accurately. Wouldn't take a rocket scientist to draw them up and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that it be done.

People like Chris Matthews would rather believe and talk about whether or not Hillary got votes because she 'cried'. Well, for one thing, she didn't cry. She did respond with some emotion to a question she was asked. Some people reported being glad to see that 'she is human'!!! Oh my God. C'mon, did you really think she wasn't? Then there were those who said that she might not be 'tough enouth' to be president because she 'cried'. Kind of damned if she does and damned if she doesn't isn't she? I do know that I am strongly considering voting for Hillary. Not because she cried. Not because she is a woman. But because I heard her answer a variety of questions with intelligence and factual basis. And, let's face it, at a time when the world needs someone to listen and someone to help create a peaceful world where all can have their basic needs met and have a chance for a better life, maybe it will take a woman to do that! Guys, ya gotta admit, your track record hasn't been flawless!

by Crystal Purcell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 6:01:05 PM

  (0+)