It really is rather amazing that the polling in New Hampshire was so completely off the mark. Dunno if I’m buying what’s becoming the official explaination for the discrepancies (some folks have their own explaination, involving Diebold).

But my question is - are there really that many undecided voters who were swayed by Hillary’s tears? Who get up to the few days before the election without really knowing who they’re going to vote for? Are there really women who were so incensed at the way Hillary’s tears were portrayed in the media that the decided not to vote for Obama or Edwards or whomever, and cast their vote for her instead?

Then again, Clinton led by a wide margin among those who decided more than a month ago whom they were voting for. So maybe the Obama “surge” in the wake of Iowa was little but wishful thinking amongst the media - and the pollsters themselves.