2 votes

Projected outcome of NH vs. Reported Outcome - Suspiciously on the nose with Romney & Huntsman!

Someone in the media (NYTimes) certainly had a "crystal ball" when it came to predicting the outcomes of their surge-boys Romney and Huntsman -- they came within 0.0 to 0.5 of their projection!

The rest of the candidates they were way off on -- most markedly Ron Paul! It's blatantly apparent that with such a close projection between Huntsman & Ron Paul that they were trying to fix Huntsman to come in 2nd, but Ron Paul had such a landslide of votes they were unable to achieve that.

Here are the Projections versus the Reported Outcome of the New Hampshire election:

Mitt Romney – Projection: 38.5 / Reported Outcome: 39 = 0.5 difference
Jon Huntsman – Projection: 17.0 / Reported Outcome: 17.0 = 0 difference
Ron Paul – Projection: 18.6 / Reported Outcome: 23 = 4.4 difference
Santorum – Projection: 12.3 / Reported Outcome: 9 = 3.3 difference
Gingrich – Projection: 11.5 / Reported Outcome: 9 = 2.5 difference
Perry – Projection: 1.2 / Reported Outcome: 1 = 0.2 difference

Projection: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/...
Reported Outcome: http://www.wmur.com/r/30132728/detail.html



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If this were smoke of ballot tampering, then there wouldn't

be this discrepancy.

Instead, I postulate that the pollsters simply do not account for Paul's ability to draw in new voters, thus they undercount his support.

PPP has tried to adjust for this, but they are still low.

Truly, I think it is an assumption error on the part of the pollsters who adjust the results for their assumptions, and their assumptions are wrong.

That is all.

Ballot tampering? You mean vote fraud?

I never understand when some people choose to call indications of vote fraud "discrepancies."

It's clear that the 2 they wanted to push ahead came out exactly as "predicted." How convenient.

What they weren't counting on was not being able to siphon off enough Ron Paul votes to put Huntsman in second. You don't really believe that Huntsman, the nobody and loser of all polls, is almost as popular as Ron Paul, do you?

Huntsman put all his eggs into the NH basket. I don't see his

result as being far fetched. He came in 7 points below Dr. Paul, that's not "almost as popular."

I wasn't trying to spin anything.

There is as yet, no proof of fraud.

The only thing presented was the closeness of two polling numbers to actual votes.

If they control and can steal the election, and then intention was to put Huntsman in 2nd, why didn't they do it?

Why get Paul's numbers so wrong? Why didn't they adjust his vote total to match the polling?

Why didn't the polling show Huntsman in 2nd?

My theory is much more plausible. Yours requires proof you don't have and likely can't get, and on top of that, doesn't make sense if they really tried to finagle the vote.

very telling

statistics -- hah even the Diebolds can only be rigged so far