Margin of error

Stephanie Umbro, Maine — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:34:58 GMT

As always, Andy, thank you for the history lesson. I always enjoy the trips you take us down Memory Lane!

As I was not around to remember this election (never was my mother, I might add, and my dad wasn't in the frame of mind to care at that point) I appreciate the flash back and reminder. How come this history doesn't help to keep the media and pundits humble, or is it just the "mud on the face" concept that we voters simply can't resist?

Margin of error

Dave, Tn — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:11:56 GMT

After watching what "former" democrat operatives acting as "so called" news people have done to manipulate democrats against democrats I can hardly wait to see what they'll do once it's Republican vs: Democrat. :-)

Margin of error

Jon, Portland, OR — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:54:55 GMT

Why hasn't anyone asked the semi-obvious question: if EVERY poll was so far off, and there has long been charges of electronic voting machine tampering (including convictions last week of 2 guys in Ohio back in '04), why isn't anyone investigating the possibility now? It seems strange that all MSM outlets are so readily accepting that they all must have lost their minds, or all the pollsters and respondents lied. Is there no other possible answer, and isn't the truth worth a little digging?

Margin of error

William Dotson, St Louis, MO — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:01:44 GMT

Not that i don't have a streak of schadenfreude in me that loves seeing the "experts" have to eat their words, but isn't it possible that all the experts, all the polls, and all the pundits weren't necessarily wrong about the New Hampshire Democratic Primary? I propose the following as a possible scenario: all of the polls were correct predicting Sen. Obama as a favorite. This prediction energized Sen. Clinton's supporters to show out, knowing that she needed every possible vote to win, while creating an apathy in Sen Obama's supporters who were less willing to take the time to vote for someone who was "sure to win" anyways. Is it not possible that the very predicting of Obama to be a sure-thing was what led to him losing/

Margin of error

Gerald Gardner, Georgetown, TX — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:19:15 GMT

Does no one remember why the polster (Gallup, if memory serves) got the Truman prediction wrong? The polls were conducted by telephone. Most telephones were owned by Republicans; most Democrats were too poor to afford one. I think a similar bias was at work in the polling related to the New Hampshire primary.

Margin of error

Edwin N Balidin, Houston , Texas. — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:41:12 GMT

In all fairness the press should not be blamed , what we are seeing in these primaries is test of confideces and the will of the modern voter, we should also not be surprised at any outcome.Welldone all involved.

Margin of error

Blair Williams, Monroe Twp, NJ — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:16:02 GMT

Much has been made of the 9 polls all predicting the Obama victory. Was it one poll nine times, which like the media, all try to trump each other by exaggerating the same story?

Hillary should give Chris Mathews another big hug. I think in his sustained arrogance, he drove quite a few voters to Hillary

Please Nightly MSNBC report the news - carefully and accurately. Please limit the Mathews' and Russet's and such talking axxx's - they are not only loud mouths, but, as New Hamshire showed, they are dead wrong

Blair Williams, NJ

Margin of error

Pat G, San Diego, CA — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:01:25 GMT

Swallow the despicable spin and elaborate justifications making the rounds for results on our primaries if you like. But aren't you sick of it?
Until and unless we have REAL elections instead of fictitious ones manufactured by the PR machine called TV in collusion with voting machine vendors, we will never see the REAL winners take their rightful place in the White House. REAL elections cannot occur until our elections are done ON PAPER, MARKED, CAST, AND COUNTED AT THE POLLS, WITH FULL PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. YOU will never know who really won in New Hampshire. The opscan machines have created the desired results, the lying media has reported the agreed-upon results, and dutifully now "explain" what happened, and the crooked politicians and election officials have compromised the ballots. What will YOU do about it?

Margin of error

Dave L , San Luis Obispo , California — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:02:18 GMT

Why is MSNBC not addressing the issue and claims of Voter fraud in New Hampshire ???

Why ?? You would think the news would be all over any claim of voter fraud. False or real.. IT IS NEWS !!

Margin of error

Adel Minuteman CT — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:28:30 GMT

Wow, what a response. Something is definetly going on. The reactions from the New Hampshire tremor, judging by the quanity of posts (nearly 600 currently), is fast approaching the record Katrina posts. Wonder if the Katrina effect is mestasizing into something positive.

Margin of error

Archie Bertrand, New Orleans, Louisiana — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:42:03 GMT

For Tim Russet and other Pundits:
Republicans are not only putting money into the Barack campaign but also sending independents to vote for Barack in the Democratic contest. Then with Barack as the Democratic Party's candidate, they will Swiss Boat him with some lies or issues to cause many white voters to abandon him. Then they will retain the White House.

Margin of error

Jim Horning, Cleveland, OH — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:13:24 GMT

In analyzing why the polls were "wrong", no one seems to be looking at the independent voters. Before the Iowa caucas, everyone was talking about the independent vote going to either Obama or McCain. If Clinton won, she'd lock up the Democratic side and the independents would go to McCain. If Romney won and Obama at least kept it close, the independents would gravitate to Obama. This presupposes that their is a significant block of independent voters who could easily vote for either Obama or McCain and would go where their votes were most likely to count. The New Hampshire polls, including Clinton's own polls, were showing Obama with such a huge lead, is it not possible that a sizable number of this block of independents decided that Obama already had it wrapped up and didn't really need their votes, so they went to the Republican primary and voted for McCain, who seemed to do somewhat better than the preelection polls were indicating?

Margin of error

Camie, San Francisco, CA — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:39:35 GMT

Yes, I find it odd that all the other polls were on target. There actually was a small town in NH where 31 votes for Ron Paul suddenly became zero. The voters complained.
Voting is really the basic tenet of Democracy, and we should know that our voting process is fair and accurate, even if it means counting them by hand.

I found this video on you tube that talked about the Diebold machines- the exact ones used in New Hampshire- and a hacker shows how easy it is to hack them to skew results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs

Margin of error

Mark Subitzky, Tokyo, Japan — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:01:50 GMT

There shouldn't be any polls at all. Although this time they seemed not to have had that much influence, I believe that they do influence some voters. Can you tell what good they do? The people of New Hampshire just told you that polls don't work. I hope that the rest of the country tells you the same. It is so easy to eliminate polling, when a pollster calls you can just hang up. How about that for a new campaign slogan around the country, just hang up!

Margin of error

Jacki, Burrillville Rhode Island — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:35:16 GMT

So maybe the press will now report the facts instead of sensationalizing to get good ratings and sell newspapers.

Margin of error

M. Cynthia Footer, Bath, Maine — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:56:59 GMT

After watching the voting results come in and hearing the candidate's speeches, I came to the conclusion that Papa Bear, one of the Great Generation, honorable and kind, rambled on and is really too old. Then along came Baby Bear, confident, smart and speaking interminably long. Finally, Mama Bear was allowed to speak and she seemed JUST RIGHT!

Margin of error

Jim Hefner Lima, Ohio — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:20:10 GMT

Why would anyone be surprised that the media got it wrong. I seem to remember a certain presidential election in the recent past that they couldn't get right either. I get tired of all the polls anyway. Mr. Dotson may be on to something with his theory.
Isn't news what the media is supposed to report on instead of create.

I think they should have all the primaries on the same day like the election. Here in Ohio by the time it is our turn the whole thing could be cut and dried.

Margin of error

Denise Foley, Oreland, PA — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:10:40 GMT

While it's all well and good to admit to this mistake, you might want to apply the same critical eye to your other coverage. Last night, you promo-ed a story about "a possible cure for autism." I'm sure many anxious parents tuned in to find out about this incredible breakthrough which, near the end of the segment, we all learned was applicable to only 1% of all autism cases. I'm no mathematician, but I think that means that it's not applicable 99% of the time. Time to stop overhyping things--from election results to "cures"--and to reconsider whether you should be so overconfident about your own reporting that you speak before you think.

Margin of error

Paul Keller Rockville Centre, NY — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:19:51 GMT

"The Comeback Kid", "Upset in New Hampshire", "What a Turnaround". Those were some of the comments made by the media. "What changed" was a question pondered at length by the pundits. But what if nothing changed? The perception that one candidate leads over another prior to the actual voting is created by the polls whose stated margin of error is usually mentioned but ignored by the media. Thus the climate- among those who voted- prior to the voting was exactly as it was after the voting, only the poll numbers were taken as fact, not as a variable estimate.

Margin of error

Ed Faulkner, Richmond, VA — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:52:08 GMT

After years of mistakes, do you think that the media could just report the news instead of trying to predict it? Nah...that just makes too much sense.

Margin of error

D Johnson — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:53:33 GMT

Polls are not votes, period. In NH we trust our voting officials even when we don't like the results.

Margin of error

D Johnson, Lebanon, NH — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:54:37 GMT

Polls are not votes, period. In NH we trust our voting officials even when we don't like the results.

Margin of error

Virginia Cushing, Limington, Maine — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:08:31 GMT

I am a white, female independent voter who has always thought this country should elect a woman to the presidency. I had hoped it would be someone of integrity with strong morals and high ethical standards. To my dismay, the only female entity running is none of the above. How very sad for us.

Margin of error

Paul - Elmira, NY — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:54:57 GMT

I am curious to know if any candidate has ever before used a teleprompter for a primary night concession or victory speech??? Maybe that is a good question for Andy Franklin to investigate and comment about. If it is in fact unprecedented it should certainly be mentioned. For that matter is any other canditate of either party currently traveling with a teleprompter?

Margin of error

Mary Anne Truscello, Easton, Maryland — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:54:27 GMT

To Tim Russet, Meet The Press,
I are writing about the upcoming elections. I am very passionate about politics. I watch you every week. I have been tremendously upset with newscasters and with you in particular. I want a newscaster to bring me the news without slants so that I can draw my own conclusions. It is evident that Hilary Clinton is not the choice of most newscasters and you in particular. Hilary won by a landslide in California and Massachuetts. It was hardly mentioned by all the newscasters. This was tremendous considering all the PR Obama received from the Kennedy's and Oprah. Clinton showed them. Hilary has to do everything with twice the effort. She can never make any blunders because they are blown totally out of proportion.
Tim, I am so disappointed. I have always thought that you were the greatest. But, I have found, you are no comparison to Tom Brokaw. You are so bias-Why don't you ask Obama the real tough questions that he will have to show his knowledge and his experience to be able to answer it. It is obvious that you are anti-Hilary. Tom, on the other hand, NEVER tells us who is his favorites-He is the ultimate professional. He show no favorites.
I will never watch you again! Please respond!

Margin of error

Jan V.Veerman Rawai,Phuket,Thailand — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:05:42 GMT

Hi Mark Subitzky,
Are you still there doing what? Or just getting older by do nothing......We are still here doing all kind of things and a lot of nothing or playing the guitar.....Tjin aks for you.....