It didn’t take long. The netroots are complaining that the dreaded Diebold machines stole the New Hampshire election for Hillary. Read this – and a summary of posts here.
The posts claim that Obama showed a significant lead in the towns that hand counted ballots, vs. Hillary leading in the Diebold districts. The posters all admit that the Diebold machines are all in the more populated areas, while hand counting occurs in the lesser populated areas. It’s interesting that the assumption is automatically made that the machines themselves made the difference – not the difference in population that may show a difference in preference.
Also, ABC News says we must learn why the polls were so wrong. Here’s my suggestion – folks are tired of being bothered by pollsters and lie to them.
Update – Michelle Malkin has more.
Interesting take on the issue… As you know, after Sen. Clinton’s unforeseen NH victory, many people are questioning the pollsters. There is so much to consider when exploring what goes into political polling. Predicting elections is one of the most difficult challenges in survey work. Generally speaking, election surveys actually do work fairly well (it’s worth remembering that the polling on the Republican side in New Hampshire was pretty accurate). For all their flaws, surveys are still one of the best available tools for figuring out what the public wants. Check out our Public Agenda blog at http://publicagenda.org/headlines/headlines_blog.cfm for more on this!