Does anyone know why the network's published entrance or exit polls never give us the simple vote total???

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NVDEM

All I want to know is what percentage of ALL PEOPLE said they voted for candidate X.

It's not in this poll, it wasn't in any of the New Hampshire or Iowa entrance or exit polls. I know that they DO ask this question, so why don't the ever tell us this result?

I realize the result can be "approximated" by totaling the other figures, say, male and female. In this case, it shows 48.65 for Clinton and 37.94 for Obama. But those are certainly not accurate figures because the other breakdowns don't produce that same result.

Does anyone know why the networks never give us the raw total?

So what happened to the Dem turnout? As late as this morning the talking heads were claiming that Reid's prediction of over 100,000 Dems might happen. Now there's more than 50% in and there's only a bit more than 6,000-ish votes?? WTF?!?!

CNN shows the R's in NV with more voters with only 38% in. I say again = WTF?!?

The big shock is Edwards. Even with the viability rules, I expected him to do much better. The pressure will now really be on for him to drop out. The media will now have a reason to ignore him even more.

They are showing delegates, not actual votes. This was not a good showing for Edwards.

Congratulations to Senator Clinton on her apparent victory. I deplore the tactics they used in the state, but now is not a time to rehash that. Congratulations.

Egg on the union. The shameless people lose after all.

Now what?

Can I now get you goon folks to consider....now I know you all want to say..wait until SC and the vote there. Let the 50% of the black vote save him...etc etc etc. Stop that nonsense. Feb 5th is the big day and it is not gonna happen. So let's get the party unified ok?

Clinton/Obama 08

Edwards as Ag because he would be good for that (he probably will drop out because he's toast)

BTW...add NV's change numbers up (BO and JE's) they don't = HC's. She is now both the Agent of Change and the Most Experienced. Kinda neat huh.

Insurgent campaign?! For an insurgent he seems extraordinarily well-funded and hooked into some very high-powered establishment types. He's not an insurgent.

Nevada is just one state. Clinton had a big advantage there in the polls. I don't know why the media built it up to be so close. I guess it was the culinary union endorsement, which really wasn't that significant. I think Edwards got their endorsemnt in 2004, and he still lost to Kerry. The only reason it was in the news so much was the Clintons' obsession with it.

I guess once the union decided to endorse Barack, Bill and Hillary wanted to change the rules. Now they'll destroy the union if they ever gain power. No intimidation there though . . .

Obama made a good showing. Politics has a funny way of being unpredictable. We'll see what happens next.

I meant to type good folks

Kefa:

Frankly after I vote on Feb 5th, I'm re-registering as an independent. This was my first time registering as a Democrat (to vote for Obama). I'm not voting for Clinton in the general. Not sour grapes, but the way she has conducted her campaign over the last few weeks (particularly the lying) is both inexcusable and illuminating.

A president has to have integrity and it's clear by the way she runs her campaign, she doesn't. That's not what America needs and that's not what we should expect in a president.

But by all means, she (and you) should enjoy this victory. Just don't expect us who wanted and expected more from the next POTUS to join in your celebration.

Right on!!!!!!!! Power to the people!!

To Kefa: That ticket might seem ideal to you but I think it would kill our chances of winning this year. It sends the wrong message to the general electorate. It says, we're going to force Obama on Hillary for the sake of party unity, whether they have the same political philosophy or not and whether she already has someone more suitable in mind.
It would be a like forcing Steny Hoyer on Nancy Pelosi when she wanted Jack Murtha. And how did that work out? Steny is running a parallel house leadership and behaves like he's not accountable to her. She's just a figurehead. Pelosi looks weak and the guys run the show.
Now, imagine that the same thing happens to Hillary. She gets Obama forced on her. Who's really in charge? Well, to the general voter, it's hard to say. The choice wasn't hers so it;s safe to say that she isn't. Now, throw into the mix the whole GOP fearmongering routine. Suddenly, you've got a presidential candidate that has been weakened by her party and the guys standing next to her has made himself look soft on terrorism.
Put them next to John McCain.
Does this look like a good picture to you?

McCain would be a continuation of Bush's policies, and frankly, I'm doing quite well now; change is overrated!

GO McCAin!!

Hillary winds women, those over 45, Latinos.

Goo enough for Dems, but troublesome for a general election.

If she wins to nomination, and the way the Democratic establishment has set it up, she probably will, she drag the party down in pink/purple states. Good chance the Dems will lose their gain in 2006.

A Clinton might be in the White House, but at the expense if the party, again. Goota love those Clintons.

It was nice to see Terry "I screwed the Democratic Party" McCauliff on MSNBC after they called Nevada for Hills. It made me remember that if Hills is elected, she'll get to choose who'll run the DNC. That means, BYE-BYE to Howard Dean, and HELLO to another McCauliff-like DNC Leader.

Is that what you Hills supporters want? Dean has re-shaped the DNC, so that we can campaign in ALL 50 states. Now, Clinton has the possibility of turning that all around.

Is that what you want?

I hope Obama does well in S. Carolina. He needs to, in order to appear viable on Super Tuesday. However, the Dem. Establishment is driving this Leftist to stay home on election day if Hills is the nominee.

What will she do? Pass more NAFTA-like trade deals that destroyed states like my Michigan? Press for more school uniforms? Pass another welfare reform bill? Pass another Telecommunications Act of 1996-like bill, which allowed corporations like Clear Channel to buy up little stations across the nation and broadcast Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingrahm? Pass an amendment against flag burning? Go to war with Iran? Allow AIPAC to run our nation's foreign policy?

Plus, let me remind you, if there's one thing to drive Republican turnout UP, it's a Hills for President campaign.

Obama represents new ideas and can bring in new voters to the party. Hills brings back old memories, and old, tried and tested strategies.

What a bore.

And I'm supposed to vote for her why?

What a bore.

Groundhog Day comes late this year. Edwards drops out February 6th.

Edwards will drop out when he can no longer play King Maker at the convention. As long as he keeps collecting enough delegates to keep Obama or Hilary from getting the 2,025 need for the general nomination. Not including super delegates Obama and Clinton are basically tied for delegates even after Nevada.

It's got to suck to be John McCain right about now, tying with Ron-fricking-Paul for a dust-eating second or third-place finish in a neighbor state. He must be thinking Nevada is not very neighborly at all.

Katie,

The Hillary-Haters are getting what they deserve. They played racial politics (4 page memo from SC) against the most racially progressive couple in America. But this time, like New Hampshire, they didn't have enough Republicans, independents, and illegal voting college students. Ronald Hussein Reagan Obama is going down.

What I find interesting is that as I flip between CNN and FoxNoise (I know, I need to get a life) there is NO mention of the Second Place race in NV. Not even a hint of a comment. It seems that they just can’t stand mentioning Ron Paul. I guess they wouldn’t want to give him any name more recognition.

They played racial politics (4 page memo from SC) against the most racially progressive couple in America.

----------------

the lack of basic reasoning in this post is astounding. the Obama campaign compiles a list of plausible race-baiting statements made by Clinton and surrogates, and THEY are the ones playing the race card?

and i guess Jewish historians cataloguing deaths in the Holocaust are playing the anti-Semite card?

think before you post.

yeah katie, keep that in mind for SC

edwards really sucked it up here, pretty pathetic

i can't wait until hillary wins the nomination and totally kills our numbers in congress (and loses the presidency if running against McCain)...I bet that will be a great day for Hillary supporters, good job looking at the big picture..

blackstar wrote on January 19, 2008 4:58 PM:
They played racial politics (4 page memo from SC) against the most racially progressive couple in America.

the lack of basic reasoning in this post is astounding. the Obama campaign compiles a list of plausible race-baiting statements made by Clinton and surrogates, and THEY are the ones playing the race card?

and i guess Jewish historians cataloguing deaths in the Holocaust are playing the anti-Semite card?

think before you post.

:: you know the meaning of the word "Plausible"?

Obama would get crushed in the general. He can't stand up for himself against Edwards and Clinton. The republicans would eat him alive. Luckily, voters not online bullies are who get to pick the nominee! So sell you unelectable story elsewhere.

FL, CA, NJ, NY, MA--I can just see all those delegates adding up.

Ill try not to take it personally, I know it hurts to lose.

Well, no, the "voters" haven't spoken - about 100,000 people vote. Caucuses disenfranchise, and are intimidating. People should be able to vote anonymously and by mail. I hear everyone was worried about "voter suppression" with the lawsuit, but when only 100,000 turn out to caucus from a state of 2.5 million, that's quite pitiful.

Kefa,

Obama will never subordinate himself to run with Hillary Bush Clinton. She is everything he is working to overcome in American politics: the cronie connected, Washington establishment, corporate-serving status quo. If he is not nominated in 2008, he will be the leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2012, whether Hillary wins the 2008 election or not (Bill's wife's presidency would be a disaster).

If by some fluke, Hillary is nominated and Obama abandons all of his values to run with her, I simply could not vote for Hillary for president. She is dishonest, mean-spirited and unqualifed.

That would be great if bloomberg entered the race, it would guarantee a Dem victory.

Aren't you aware of this???

I'm an Obama supporter, but I will happily vote for Hillary or Edwards or the nearest cheese sandwich in November. Any of the above will be a significant improvement over the last eight years or any of the GOP candidates.

I know people are bitter and hurt, but GET OVER IT. Pull for your candidate, vote for your candidate, contribute to your candidate, but when it is all over let's remember who the real enemy is.

i dont post but i read the comments ...ive been an independent since 1980....you democrats are trying to destroy yourselves.....how can you want to put someone in the whitehouse that has 2 years in the senate...the reason hrc is getting votes is when people with average intelligence think about it he has said nothing but change ...he has to get specific and say what change is and how hes going to make change ....thats common sense....i think hes running a bad campaign by not getting specific ......

also i cant believe the hate spewed on both sides .......your worst thasn the repubs