I heard reports early in the day of the primary that exit polls favored Obama. Perhaps later polls reflected the actually outcome, I don't know. Be that as it may, many pre-vote polls favored Obama, some by a considerable margin.

It's certainly in our country's interest that SOMEONE pay for a recount, somewhere, so we can have a little more faith in the electronic counting system, given what we got in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000.

Sent by Royinoslo | 4:21 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Exit Polls are adjusted by networks to match closer to the actual tally of the vote. So when you look at CNN or MSNBC's exit polls this is not the actual opinion of those who took the exit poll, it has been adjusted to be more in line with the official vote tally.

The raw Exit Poll data is what people actually said when leaving the poll. Chris Matthews let it slip on his show this week that the raw Exit Polls from NH showed Obama leading over Clinton. Exit Polls are extremely reliable. They are used by the UN to monitor elections in third world countries, because they catch irregularities that are symptoms of voter fraud. They are not infallible by any means, but if the raw Exit data differs from the official vote tally there is a major problem.

The conclusion that there was no fraud in NH because the Exit Polls produced by the news networks match the official vote is uneducated, because these exit polls have been adjusted to match the official vote tally. If the unadjusted Exit polls are not in line with the official tally, as Chris Matthews has stated, then fraud is not only a possibility, it is the most rational and logical conclusion for the discrepancy.

Sent by Dan | 5:42 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The only exit polls available to the public are "adjusted" to match the final outcome. The raw exit polls are not available to the public but several "slips" by the media have suggested Obama in fact would win. Brad Friedman has extensive details on his blog.

Sent by Paul | 5:58 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I think it is good to start raising the alarm as early as possible about this. I am not convinced that what happened in the last two presidential elections will not happen again. With this early flag, even if there is nothing inaccurate, it acts as a warning to anyone who might try anything, that WE THE PEOPLE are watching!

Sent by Linda Carmichael | 6:48 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Would it be too much to hope that Obama could step in to request the recount for $2000 as he met the criterion for the economically palatable option?

Sent by Paul Levinson | 7:00 PM ET | 01-11-2008

GIVE ME A BREAK! LOOK AT THE NATIONAL POLLS! SHE IS WINNING...OBAMA CHEATED in the Iowa Caucuses. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth. But did they really earn their finishing positions? The answer may be surprising. In the last hours before the Iowa caucuses Obama, approached Joe Biden with this, proposal: In precincts where Biden had a local official loyal to him, and if Biden wasn't viable, then Senator Biden would tell his organizers to move his supporters over to Obama,in precincts where Obama had more than enough supporters, he would lend people to Biden to ensure Biden a fourth place finish so that he could continue. Biden told the Washington Post that the strategy could be "viability for victory except when the media found out, Obama's camp admitted that the conversation took place. Biden, who when asked about the proposal at a campaign event said that the deal could "probably" help both campaigns; he rejected the deal on "moral grounds," History recorded that Joe Biden placed fifth in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race. On January 4, the day after the caucus, the New York Times reported Obama made the same deal to Bill Richardson only this time the deal was accepted. The Times article gives an eye-witness account and confession of an Obama official telling Richardson supporters that a pact had indeed been made. Deb Copeland, an Obama volunteer reported by the New York Times. "What we're concerned about hearing people going to Hillary. Volunteers for the Biden campaign told the Rev. Rob Times that Obama organizers used the same speech about a "pact" to lure supporters in at least two precincts. The Effect of backdoor wheeling and dealing between campaigns is that Richardson's fourth place finish and Obama's would not had a victory in a democratic system. Our democracy is based, in part, on the concept of "one man, one vote," and a vote by a secret ballot, free from the judging eyes of neighbors and the media, free from bribery, and free from the influence of political activists. Had the Iowa contest been based on a ballot, and had caucus voters cast a single vote for the candidate of their choice as is the most fair method of picking a president, then Obama may have come in third and Richardson in fifth. Obama's would have placed second to Clinton, and the dynamic of the race would have changed drastically. Edwards, Clinton, and even Biden all would have come out of Iowa in stronger positions. Those who took advantage and exploited it for their own purposes, namely Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, are not without culpability and their misdeeds should be remembered in the minds of voters.

Sent by SICK OR RACE AND OBAMA | 7:02 PM ET | 01-11-2008

It's well known that the commercial outfits doing the exit polls adjust their results to converge with the official vote counts as the latter become available. Little surprise that the final exit poll numbers "exactly matched the final totals".

Sent by John | 7:06 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I find it most disturbing that the 9/11 candidate, Rudy Guiliani received 9.11% of the vote in 3 different townships. Is this coincidence or someones idea of a sick joke?

Sent by Patrick Ferris | 7:19 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The whole system is broken, and the media doesn't have the guts (or the freedom?) to say it.

Heads will be left on pikes (figuratively) when it's all over. We will make your eyes goggle with what we do.

Sent by JS | 7:32 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Chris Matthews stated on Hardball on Wednesday evening that the raw data of their EXIT polls showed Obama winning by 8%. Therefore, "you could at least imagine some kind of skulduggery."

Sent by John | 7:52 PM ET | 01-11-2008

what about the republican party do there votes also get recounted/ and if not why not?

Sent by ron paul | 8:04 PM ET | 01-11-2008

BEAUTIFUL let the games begin
GO OBAMA and Ron Paul

haahahahaha

Sent by Evangeline | 8:19 PM ET | 01-11-2008

In my opinion, Rudy Guiliani got 9.11% of the vote in three townships because some of the gangsters who've been rigging the election decided to let us know that they'd do whatever they felt like doing and get away with it.

Sent by Nancy Pendrake | 10:19 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Let's give it up for the real Democrat who is seriously interested in protecting the democratic process. Go Dennis!

Sent by Molly | 10:24 PM ET | 01-11-2008

To say that exit polls matched the vote count is absurd. Many voters called into talk radio shows reporting that they, and their friends, voted for Ron Paul and their county reported Zero points for Paul. So obviously the results do NOT match how people said they voted.

Sent by Paula Marie | 10:43 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The elections were rigged in 2000 and 2004 according to this testimony to Senators: http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

Sent by john gotts | 10:53 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Dennis is a man of integrity. I wanna thank him for this move. He truly works for the people. May the people notice of this man. He is the best candidate out there.

Sent by JK | 10:57 PM ET | 01-11-2008

When I followed the link at the end of your article stating that the exit polls matched exactly the vote tally, the story you linked to says nothing of the sort, just more fluff about Hillary crying.. I don't get it...

Sent by Ben | 11:16 PM ET | 01-11-2008

One of the commentors asked if Obama
could ask for the recount and save
Dennis Kucinich the cost for the
recount.

It loosk like Obama would have to pay
the fee and the recount cost, since, he
is behind Clinton by about 3.5%, I
think.
If he had less than 3%, your right, it
would only cost Obama the fee.

Thanks

Sent by Frank Henry | 11:33 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I don't want to be brusque, but the implication in this story that the AP article says the exit polls support the votes is a lie. No numbers are compared at all. The AP doesn't even imply that some unseen polls support the results.

Sent by Ed | 12:01 AM ET | 01-12-2008

NPR, who do you think you're fooling? After your same-day interviews of Edward and Clinton earlier this week, you fully convinced me of your attempts to push Hillary into the lead. Totally biased, unfair, questioning - you softballed Clinton while at the same time listing all the criticisms of Edwards and asking what he would say to voters who think that there are "two versions of John Edwards."

And this article! You must really have no shame. Everyone should do themselves a favor and read other articles about this same story - even just the AP article. Why don't you mention the name of the voting machine company - Diebold - which is *integral* to any serious analysis of this story? Why don't you explain that Why don't you mention that even though Scanlan says that the machines are standalone, it's a matter of record that they are easily hacked within minutes, and that this can be done before the machines are locked prior to the elections? Why don't you even mention that this whole effort isn't just being put forward by Kucinich, but by another totally unknown candidate (gee I wonder why he's unknown), the Michigan Republican Albert Howard?

You say there are "rumors and speculation" - why don't you say what they ARE? Since you won't post it, I will:

New Hampshire voters voted in two different ways: 81% voted on electronic machines, and 19% voted by hand-counted paper ballots. For those votes tallied on the machines, Clinton got 39.6% and Obama got 36.3%. For the hand-counted ballots, Clinton got 34.9% and Obama got 38.6%.

There's a lot more analysis on this - more than NPR's going to give you, apparently. Go read some articles that don't bleed propaganda.

Sent by Rebecca | 12:11 AM ET | 01-12-2008

My understanding is that NH used optical scan voting machines which are vulnerable to fraud in both scanning and tabulation. Since Obama seems to have won the hand counted paper ballots but not the machine tabulated ballots, I think a recount would go a long way to restoring our trust (or lack thereof) in elections.

Nancy
Seattle

Sent by Nancy | 12:13 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I'm sad; America is an authoritarian regime, the candidate who is right on all the issues for regular Americans (Dennis Kucinich) will never be president because the system is rigged. When this country was created it was designed to appear Democratic while being an Oligarchy and apparently not much has changed. I was outraged when I learned about Florida depressed about Ohio and resigned when I learned we never were the Land of the Free. I admire Mr. Kucinich in his noble fight for freedom, I'm burnt out. This is not the country I was told to love and trust as a little child, this is a country where Greg Palast is persona non grata and his important stories are "conspiracy theories".

Sent by Does it even matter? | 12:36 AM ET | 01-12-2008

GIVE ME A BREAK! Be reminded that it was HILLARY Clinton who drew First Blood on the wheeling and dealing of the Iowa Caucuses. She told some of her supporters to back Edwards to help him win 1st place over Obama. She was willing to take third in Iowa to beat Edwards in New Hamoshire. Her strategy didn't work in Iowa Obama finished 1st anyway! Concerning the vote in New Hampshire, I won't put ANYTHING past lying, coniving, spin, power hungry, pandering, distorters of the truth Bill & Hillary Clinton

Sent by Robert Lewis | 12:49 AM ET | 01-12-2008

When I first heard the results of the NH primary coming in widely varying from the pre-election polls, I thought the vote flippers are at it again! I can't believe that after all the stolen and malfunctioning elections of 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 the pundits and the main stream media (including NPR) would embarrass themselves again, so badly, by making up, out of thin air, one vacuous excuse after another as to why the polls were so "wrong"!
Get a grip you bumble brained pundits---election fraud and dysfunction are epidemic in America, we the people all know it, when are you going to get a clue and help us fight to resuscitate our Democracy? Bless you Dennis Kucinich for doing what is patriotic and honorable by filing for a recount in NH! I hope everyone in America takes notice of who it is that is fighting for the American people, again, by taking a stand for getting all the votes counted correctly! Not Obama, Not Ron Paul, Not Edwards but Dennis Kucinich!

Sent by Dr. Lora | 12:57 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I think Iowa needs to be reconsidered. Kerry won because his organization knew how to do it (as opposed to Dean's). Maybe Obama's people were similarly skilled. Iowa is perfect to manipulate the process away from the real popular vote. I do not fault the candidates (Obama or Kerry) for wanting to use the best people to win, but there should not be a setup that allows the organization rather than the candidate to make the victory. In it's front door position, Iowa has too much weight in the races. Its structure (and its people) are too different from the rest of us to be truly representative.

Sent by John Baringer | 5:04 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I subscribe to Joshua Holland's point of view:

Dear NBC,

I???m writing to express my dismay about NBC???s decision to re-write its own previously announced criteria in order ??? specifically, it seems ??? to exclude Dennis Kucinich, the fourth-place finisher in at least one major national poll, from the Las Vegas debate.

I am not of the belief that Rep. Kucinich has a chance to win the nomination, but that's beside the point. It appears to me that our political press corps, yourself included, are simply blind to the intense feelings of frustration among many of us ???out here??? in America every time the media tries to narrow the ideological spectrum and limit our political debates. I am among almost 300 million people who have not had an opportunity to cast my vote in the primary, and it is the height of arrogance for you and NBC to tell me, in effect, that only 3 of the 4 candidates who met your announced criteria are acceptable choices, or that only the views of 3 of the 4 are acceptably ???mainstream.???

His "viability" is not an issue; Kucinich is not in this race to win. He???s in it to influence the political discourse within the Democratic party, and as a Democratic-leaning independent, I would like to see the full spectrum of Democratic opinions aired and debated. It is maddening to have NBC deny us that process, especially so many months before the convention and with only a few small states having gone to the polls.

But even that isn't nearly as infuriating as the egregious disrespect shown to a member of the House of Representatives who???s been sent back to Washington by his constituents five times. I???ll be frank: to extend the invitation, and then rewrite your own rules in order to withdraw it makes it difficult for me to even maintain a civil tone.

I won???t be watching your debate ??? it will be the first one I skip ??? because I don???t want to support the idea that the media decides these elections and the voters are merely an afterthought. I will also write about your network???s hubris on my blog and urge my friends and acquaintances to boycott the debate as well. Hopefully, General Electric will receive a lot of correspondence like this one, see a smaller-than-expected audience and finally figure out that while it has its hands in many businesses, electing a president isn???t one that We the People will accept.

Best wishes,
---------------------------
Doug Johnson
Arkansas

Sent by Doug Johnson | 10:04 AM ET | 01-12-2008

It would be political suicide for Obama to ask for a recount of the first primary, which he lost despite the pre-election polls. He would be branded a crybaby and a poor loser, with the emphasis on loser. Thank goodness that Dennis Kucinich is there to do what needs to be done.

Sent by Dennis Harvey | 11:36 AM ET | 01-12-2008

In order to ensure an accurate vote count both in the upcoming primary and general elections,we must do our voting Canadian style.....hand counted paper ballots!

Sent by Melvin Mitchell | 4:21 PM ET | 01-12-2008

The truth is that polls are not accurate measures, only indicators. That is why we vote. If polls could tell the tale then no voting would be required.

Often people say one thing to a pollster and yet given a varied style of question, delivered differently it would lead to a different answer. That is why there are NO POLLSTERS in the voting booth.

Pollsters often have an attitude based on my experiences that can skew the deal. A question can be designed to lead to a certain answer. This is a FACT used by negotiators and advertisers around the world. Why would a pollster not know that? Actually they do, and they use it.

Maybe pollsters are mad that it didn't appear to work this time. Egos often get in the way.

Because we already know that leading questions lead to bad answers this kind of questioning is not allowed in a court of law.

More importantly how do the polls reflect behavior on the day of voting? Lets face it polls would love to claim to be able to drive votes based on a popularity contest.

Pollsters have no vested interest or motivation to be honest, only to claim to be valid. Meaning that they produce the results they reflected, true or not true. They only care that what they say goes.

So polls seek to make their view absolute even at the expense of the voters being allowed to make up their own mind. Maybe it is time to make voting a private matter and take away the power of the poll to skew the deal.

Yes, always check and double check results - but more importantly let's take a look at the poll methods and question them for a real EYE opening change.

Al Gore would not have conceded the race to George Bush in Florida back in 2000 if he had not believed the polls. Had he not taken the polls into account he would not have lost the race. Votes would have automatically been recounted because the margins were so close. But that is not what happened. Al Gore conceded the race and that is hard to take back. Otherwise things would clearly be different in Washington now. HE made that CHOICE based on the POLLS at the time, which were WRONG.

Let's keep in mind some people may not want to tell the truth about who they will or won't vote for. What motivation do they have to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? None.

There is not oath in taking polls. There is no expectation that a wrong answer will be checked later as being wrong. If someone changes their mind or has deliberately lied, who would know? It is RANDOM information.

The fact is that people (humans) are known to lie even when they have no reason or motivation. Perhaps out of habit because we are so prone to saying this or that just to please those around us at the time. We most often seek approval above any other concern.

Individuals at the time of a poll may be riding the wave of everyone around them, their peers. They may not want to look or sound out of sync. They don???t care what is said since they know they can vote privately. Polls are removing our right to privacy with a vote. It can and is becoming quite intimidating and I think pollsters know this.

After all a person may really think one way until they get into the booth and make the selection. PEOPLE are fickle. Yes, they hide their motives, real feelings and the truth - that is common. But MORE importantly where votes are concerned we don???t have to make our choice FINAL until we have cast our vote. There should be no one to say otherwise.

Creating some fictional idea that we must adhere to the polls is going in the wrong direction. As far as the UN claiming that polls are their only fail safe in a third world country, whatever. Last time I checked we were not a third world country and obviously it is not working for them, just look at the mess everywhere.

If people really cared that the vote was accurate and reflect their choice then we would have a different president now. Instead the polls may have been wrong about the votes in Florida in 2000 but they were right about who would become president. Think about it.

Sent by Rose | 7:02 PM ET | 01-12-2008

Recount now.Start right end right.Lets poove to the world that we're better than we are acting.If the count was wrong,make it right.(We do at football games)

Sent by player | 9:23 PM ET | 01-12-2008

This is going to sound crazy but that night after the Iowa results I had a dream that there was a recount and Obama actually won. When I turned on the morning news the next day, I was surprised that he was still in second place. How funny is that?!

Sent by Sabrena | 12:55 AM ET | 01-13-2008

The system is broken. We the people need to fix it.

Sent by FZR | 9:17 AM ET | 01-13-2008

I am a regular listener of NPR. They always support Clintons. I dont understand why they are so biased

Sent by Matt | 4:18 PM ET | 01-13-2008

What is wrong with recounting? I trust people of New Hampshire than the Corporate controlled Diebold Machines. If the NH vote count shows tempering, then I hope that Diebold people spend good time in jail and the rest of the states reject Diebold systems immediately.

Sent by Junior | 7:05 PM ET | 01-13-2008

IF YOU CAN RIG AN ELECTION YOU CAN RIG A RECOUNT.

COME ON USA. TAKE BACK YOUR COUNTRY FOR THE SAKE OF THE WHOLE PLANET. WE ARE ALL RELYING ON YOU.

THEY WILL NEVER LET OBAMA BE PRESIDENT. THE CONTINGENCY PLANS OF ASSASINATION AND MARTIAL LAW ARE IN PLACE IF THE VOTE RIGGIN IS BUSTED.

SAVE US ALL USA. GET 9 11 INVESTIGATED. REFUSE THE BIOMETRIC ID CARD (666)DONT STAND FOR IT NO LONGER.YOU CAN DO IT. NOW WHILE YOU STILL HAVE YOUR GUNS BEFORE HILARY TAKES THEM AWAY.

Sent by WORRIED IN THE UK. | 10:18 AM ET | 01-14-2008