Either the pollsters and the main stream media were grossly miscalculating the results of the New Hampshire primary because the people they polled lied to them over and over (but only on the Democrats side) or something is really fucking fishy with the votes in New Hampshire. I mean how could the pollsters be that wrong. I understand the attraction to the idea that the "media was wrong". Believe me, I think I fell for that trap at first. I agreed with all the douchebags on MSNBC last night saying in perfect unison, as if the script was handed down from the penthouse suite, that "we were wrong" or the "pollsters got it completely wrong".
That's it? That's the only hypothesis? I mean across the board from Chris Matthews to Brian Williams to Tim Russert to Keith Olbermann, it was the same thing,"We were wrong". Well what about asking if there was any fraud or vote tampering. Fuck, its not like we've had any experience dealing with that in this country. The results just look a little too perfect for the establishment. Hillary going from a poor third place showing behind Obama and Edwards to a major victory in Hew Hampshire? The Clinton campaign couldn't have gotten a better gift. Everyone was saying they were toast if she lost, so she HAD to win. John Edwards with only 17%? Hmmmm.
And on the other side you got Ron Paul neck in neck with Rudy "9/11" Giuliani at 9%. The one thing the anointed neo-con candidate could not have happen to him in New Hampshire is another loss to Ron Paul. Looks like that didn't happen for him....but barely. He was only above Paul by 1%. Hmmmmmm. All I'm saying here is maybe we should ask what a lot of people are probably thinking today.....was this primary fixed?
Looks like Brad Blog is thinking the same thing...